Deleted UserJanuary 22, 2019 at 00:0313275 views699 comments
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Comments (699)
Harry HinduJanuary 22, 2019 at 00:28#2489680 likes
Do fetuses feel pain? Do they experience stress when being aborted? I would say that anything with a nervous system feels pain and stress. Late term abortions should be illigal except in extreme circumstances.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 22, 2019 at 00:48#2489770 likes
I am not opposed to abortion and I am an antinatalist. But you could argue "What if you had been aborted?"
One reason I am not opposed to abortion is because I don't think life is a good thing.
Deleted UserJanuary 22, 2019 at 01:12#2489850 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 22, 2019 at 01:21#2489860 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 22, 2019 at 01:31#2489880 likes
If you think life is a good thing then it would be a bad thing to be aborted.
By life I mean being a living sentient organism or just a human life which appears to be the richest/ most multifaceted form of life.
If life with really great and harm free for everyone it would be hard to justify terminating a pregnancy. But this is not that world.
In general I don't think there are good arguments for the existence of rights and morality as opposed to preferences. But from a standpoint of minimizing harm it will probably minimize harm not to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy.
ChristofferJanuary 22, 2019 at 01:35#2489890 likes
The deeper roots of opposition to abortion are that the fetus belongs to either a god or the father. An abortion deprives a god or a man of a baby. Men beget babies, women bear them. Women are suppose to get pregnant and bear children. That's their function. Aborting a fetus is a perversion of women's function.
In many societies controlling what women do has been an overriding concern. Women are supposed to be subservient (obedient servants). It isn't their place to make important decisions about life and death. Women are not entitled to decide whether to bear a child or not. Fewer and fewer people accept these notions.
We can not suppose that abortion of a 5 month or less fetus is a horrible experience for the fetus. It is not, because at 20 weeks, fetuses have neither consciousness to experience horrible experiences nor a sufficiently developed CNS to feel pain.
Later on, At 8 months for example, a fetus can feel pain, and can usually survive if delivered at that time.
I believe an acceptable position is that "Abortions may be performed up to the end of the 20th week without justification. After 20 weeks, abortion may be performed only if the fetus is found to have developed very abnormally, or its continued presence in the women endangers the life of the mother.
20 weeks is more than sufficient for a woman to consider whether bearing a child is an appropriate decision for her to make.
Aside from the individual men, women, and fetuses involved, the welfare of the world is at stake. Every effective means of birth control must be in play: sterilization, contraception through drugs or barriers, and abortion are all important methods of limiting fertility.
Rank AmateurJanuary 22, 2019 at 09:38#2490810 likes
Reply to tim wood can we start with the biology, and agree on some things as facts first.
I propose as a matter of fact that every human on this planet can trace their existence as a unique organism in time and space from this moment directly back to the moment of their unique conception
I propose that after the completion of conception a 100% human, 100% alive 100% geneticly unique organism exists, and from that moment on, will go through the stages of development that every other human on the planet has gone through and can only be human.
In short can we all agree, before we go any further that human life, all human life begins after the completion of conception.
The deeper roots of opposition to abortion are that the fetus belongs to either a god or the father.
If you are American, and uphold right to life as in the constitution, then the resolution is based on natural law.
If there are no intervening contrary events, birth proceeds naturally from conception. Therefore the question is whether human intervention is of the same order as genetic abnormality or natural catastrophe, such as mothers death, starvation, etc.
The rest of human law strives to avoid those circumstances, and therefore it is irrational to consider abortion as lawful unless, possibly, the mother was forced to conceive against her will, and even in that case, it remains an extremely contentious exception.
Rank AmateurJanuary 22, 2019 at 09:52#2490840 likes
Reply to tim wood and can we also agree to define abortion in this thread as the deliberate ending of a human pregnancy by artificial means that results in the death the fetus.
Fetus for sake of brevity in this thread meaning the unique human starting at conception until birth. I am aware there are multiple names for this entity based on different stages of its development, but for brevity I would propose fetus works for all for the sake of this argument
Rank AmateurJanuary 22, 2019 at 10:14#2490860 likes
Reply to tim wood next can we agree that without justification, (and for the sake of staying on topic be generous to each other and allow we would generally have same definition of justification) it is immoral to deliberately end a human life after birth.
If we can agree on the biology that each unique human life begins at conception, and if can agree that it is immoral to end that life after birth.
Than can we agree that the nature of that human between those 2 points is a determining factor in the moral permissibility of killing it. In other words, does what the fetus is matter at all in the moral permissibility of killing it?
Rank AmateurJanuary 22, 2019 at 10:21#2490880 likes
Reply to tim wood and finally for now I would propose that in all topics on abortion there is a first order question, and that is, is it morally permissible. Because if or if it not morally permissible would have a philosophic impact on the legal and societal questions
I believe that the pro-abortion side isn't a group without morals. In fact, one abortion legislation I've seen (many many years ago) specifies only necessary conditions for an abortion meaning that, at least, they're sensitive to pro-lifer belief and, at most, are very ethical in their considerations.
Family planning, if done well or if allowed to be done well, will save us a lot of trouble because then abortion would be a non-issue. I think the pro-lifer and the pro-choice group can find common ground there. The issue would simply dissolve.
Rank AmateurJanuary 22, 2019 at 10:39#2490910 likes
Reply to tim wood sorry one more important part, if we determine there is a morally justified reason to kill the fetus due to its nature we are done.
If however we determine there is no morally justifiable reason to kill the fetus, we now need to determine if the fetus has a claim on use of the mother's body.
I think that is the base of the first order argument- await where the agreement and disagreement in the set up is, before proceeding.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 22, 2019 at 13:08#2491130 likes
No good arguments for right and morality? This isn't reason speaking but something else.
Moral positions tend to be incompatible. For example deontology or divine command theory would say that you should not have an abortion because it is wrong and you are commanded not to whereas utilitarianism would say weigh up the harms
If you have to obey a moral system as facts or commands then arguments don't matter. I don't see any evidence of moral facts or innate rights.
I think utilitarian calculations would not favour creating a life dependent on what you put in your equation. If the harm of existing outweighs being terminated as a fetus that favors abortion.
I think once you invoke moral terms like good and bad then you are on your way to a natural utilitarian calculation. However a deontologist would probably defer to God or moral absolutes and say that life was intrinsically valuable or Gods laws infallible regardless of levels of suffering involved being born.
But as an antinatalist I think creating new life conflicts with most moral intuitions like not to harm others or infringe on consent.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 22, 2019 at 13:10#2491140 likes
People claim to be appalled by abortion but then they tolerate this:
One problem with roe vs wade is it was decided in 1973 and there have been significant advances in medical technology (contraception, sex education, medical terminations and fetal imaging and understanding of fetal development) since that time. So some of the reasoning is now outdated.
If we could employ the best technology and methods for pregnancy prevention and for early intervention in unwanted pregnancy, the number of troublesome or late term abortions would plummet.
Bright lines (before this OK and after this date or stage of development not OK) really do not work. Abortion is always troublesome and prevention of unwanted pregnancy should be the first priority and early intervention to terminate a poor second option. Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancy to term is tantamount to taking control of another persons body without their consent (a form of slavery or imprisonment..
It is not possible to have a rational or philosophical discussion without acknowledging the science and facts behind fetal development and the technologies available to address the problem.
A pregnant woman wants to have an abortion. What if any are grounds for controlling as to whether or when or under what circumstances she may proceed?
Depends what counts as controlling. I don't agree with [i]prevention[/I], except for medical reasons.
However, there are certainly ethical grounds for [i]discouragement[/I] depending on the circumstances. We could get into the latter further, but I would question whether that's really necessary. I would question whether you really could not fathom them yourself, unaided.
To give you some context, I'm onboard with the legislation in the UK. I don't think that it's in need of any (major) reform.
Rank AmateurJanuary 22, 2019 at 17:55#2491700 likes
ARGUMENT FOR THE FUTURE VALUE
Mostly stolen with some adaption from Dr. Don Marquis
P1. One definition of murder is the loss of one’s future of value
Any discussion on abortion needs to start with some theoretical account of the wrongness of killing. I would imagine most on here would have no issue with the assertion it is morally impermissible to, without justification, kill adult human beings like us. But why is it wrong to kill people like us? While we may want to suggest it is the loss others would experience due to our absence. But if that was all it was, it would allow the killing of hermits, or those who lead otherwise independent or friendless lives. A better answer would be the primary wrong done by the killing is the harm it does to the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. However is it simply the change in a biological state that make killing wrong? That seems insufficient. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which
would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.
P2. From a very early point in a pregnancy there is a unique human organism.
After the process of conception is completed there exists a new zygote cell. This cell has a unique genetic makeup. This zygote is an embryonic stem cell with the ability to generate every organ in the body. For the next 2 weeks or so, or until it is at the 16 cell stage it has the ability to split and twin. After this time, there exists a unique human organism, and this organism can only develop into a human.
P3. All adult humans undergo the same process of development
Currently, there is no other way to become an adult human being, than to start as a human ovam, and a human sperm, to undergo the process of conception and fertilization and the various stages of embryonic development leading to a birth of some type.
P4. Each human being on the planet can directly trace their past as a biological creature on earth from now back to their unique human organism as defined in P2
P5. All things that are part of a unique past time line as defined in P4, where at one time a future on the same time line.
P6. If P5, all human organisms as defined in P2 are on a unique time line that encompasses their unique human future much like ours
P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it as in P1.
One is in possession of one’s biological future whether or not one is aware of it or not. One is possession of ones one’s future of value even if one ( in most cases) does not desire it. As an example there can be a seriously depressed person, who do to the nature of their illness wishes to kill themselves and have no desire for their future. I would argue that it is not morally permissible to allow them to kill themselves because their judgement that their future is without value is handicapped by their illness. The concept of “ideal desire” would apply, and our judgement on the moral permissibly of them killing themselves should be based on what their ideal desire would be if their handicap was not there, and we would assume absent their depression they, like us would desire their future. In the second instance assume there was a person is a catatonic state, but with the real prospect of regaining conciseness, we could not say, that since this person is unaware of their future at that time, they are not in possession of it, the concept of ideal judgement would apply, and we should assume that if they were conscience they would be aware of their future and we should not let the handicap of the catatonic state deny them of their right to it. I argue that the same concept of “ideal desire” applies in the case of the fetus, and their handicap of the state of their development is not philosophically different then the prior 2 examples and we should assume that absent this handicap they would be aware, and desire their future of value as we do.
Conclusion
If P1 and one definition of murder is the loss of ones future of value and if P6 Shortly after the process of conception is complete, and very early in human development there is a unique human organism with a unique human future, and if P7 their awareness or desire for this future is not a condition of their possession of this future, taking of this human future of value is murder, and immoral.
Exceptions:
This argument holds for most cases, but not for all. If it can be shown that that there is not a future of value, say thorough embryonic DNA testing that there are sever issues this argument would allow such abortions. Since the argument hinges on there being a unique human organism and there can be a sound biological argument that one does not exist until after twinning this argument would not omit the morning after pill. Finally this argument would not omit infanticide as commonly practiced today with severely premature and physically challenged children facing lives without value as we outlined in P1.
last caveat - this argument makes no attempt at the next level argument that even if the fetus has a right not to be killed because of it life of future value, that does not necessarily give it the right to the use of the woman's body, that is a different argument that is pointless to have until this one is done. when this one is done - i am happy to do that one.
Reply to Rank Amateur Frankly we never attach as much value to potential as we do to actual and existent. So we value oak trees more than we value acorns. We value children more than we value embryos. One can argue against this but in general confronted with a choice between saving an established experiential living person (a child say) or a potential person (an embryo say) virtually everyone will place higher value on the child.
Rank AmateurJanuary 22, 2019 at 19:49#2491860 likes
Reply to prothero OK ?? not really sure what to say to that. Thanks for the opinion I guess.
Had abortion been legal my mother would have aborted me. That would have been a grave injustice to the world, and so it is right that abortion wasn’t legal. Abortion ought remain illegal to prevent the world from missing out on others like me.
What about evidence of the negative effects on society (increased crime) of making abortion illegal?
— praxis
Legal argument, ethical argument, pragmatic argument. Not altogether dismissible, or is it? Driving too fast, speeding, is a crime of sorts: from that would you argue that speed limits should be abolished?
If doing so significantly lowered the crime rate in about 15 years?
Is this a trick question? :grimace:
Deleted UserJanuary 22, 2019 at 21:23#2492070 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
The literature seems consistent that mothers nearly always grieve termination of their pregnancy.
Even though I am in favor of abortion being legal and readily accessible, I wouldn't for a moment suggest that aborting a fetus is a matter of indifference to the parents, particularly to the woman who experiences it first hand. A very early miscarriage can send parents into grieving, depending on the emotional investment in the pregnancy. For most people, conceiving, delivering, and parenting children is the central experience.
On the other hand, ending a pregnancy one didn't wish for, and preventing the child that was not planned on and perhaps definitely not wanted is also a great relief. Bearing the unwanted child is no small burden, and lasts a long time.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 22, 2019 at 22:35#2492290 likes
It is relevant because it s a realistic often occurring result of creating a child.
Creating more children is just going to create more children in that situation and not alleviate the situation.
If child welfare was so high on the anti-abortionist agenda then why are so many children in dire circumstances? Children can only suffer because they are created.
Deleted UserJanuary 22, 2019 at 23:02#2492450 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 22, 2019 at 23:15#2492460 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Terrapin StationJanuary 22, 2019 at 23:19#2492480 likes
Human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
It is in recognition of this dignity that a person had moral standing.
A cluster of cells, not having any of the characteristics of human dignity, has no moral standing.
As that cluster of cells develops, it grows in its ability to express sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. It grows in its entitlement to be treated with dignity.
The woman involved in a pregnancy is fully entitled to be treated with dignity.
Pregnancies that threaten the dignity of the pregnant woman may be terminated up until such time as the dignity of the developing human becomes significant. That is, when the developing human shows significant sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
Thereafter pregnancies may be terminated if on balance the continuation of the pregnancy will result in a reduction human dignity.
Generally, this will be around the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy.
Deleted UserJanuary 22, 2019 at 23:42#2492590 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to tim wood Quoting myself again, since you saw fit to split the thread...
Let's do some deconstruction.
Removing a cyst is not killing. A cyst is not a living thing, not a plant, animal or mushroom, and hence cannot be killed.
But more obvious is who is not included in the argument. The account hardly mentions the pregnant woman, and then only to say we will talk about her later. That alone ought give us pause, and wonder as to the attitude towards women that stands behind this argument.
@Rank Amateur's desire is to have the argument expressed in terms that suit him. Don't play along.
You would argue that there is no dignity that attaches to humans (or anything, really) because of what it is?
No, I would not argue that.
Human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
That's what it is.
It may also be a bunch of human cells; but that is insufficient to dignify it. So if you think dignity derives from the material constituents of an individual, I would disagree.
Deleted UserJanuary 23, 2019 at 00:38#2492770 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
That's what it is.
It may also be a bunch of human cells; but that is insufficient to dignify it. So if you think dignity derives from the material constituents of an individual, I would disagree.
I don't think it right to say that human dignity inheres in anything. Rather, like any value, it's projected onto others by us. Some value the life of a foetus, others don't. On what grounds can one group say that the other group is wrong?
Deleted UserJanuary 23, 2019 at 00:51#2492790 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
The woman is a problem in itself. Inasmuch as the question is framed in terms of abortion - at least informally - the woman is incidental. As a matter of human rights in particular women's rights, then the fetus is incidental. Roe v. Wade argues that the fetus has plenty of rights pending, pending live birth. Hmm. By this rule of requiring live birth to perfect those, then what actual right does a fetus have? It would appear none. I have not seen this argument anywhere; I wonder if it's sound - it seems sound!
Two things here. I think it obvious that the woman has a place in considering ending the pregnancy. In this regard your Roe v. Wade might be lacking.
Some value the life of a foetus, others don't. On what grounds can one group say that the other group is wrong?
As with all moral decisions - indeed, as with all decisions - it's down to you.
So I am convinced that a blastocyst is not in the same ethical category as an autonomous, adult human.
And I will go further and say that I am convinced that those who insist in denying choice to that woman in deference to the cyst are acting immorally. That is, that what they are doing is wrong.
Firstly, what I have said about abortion is not reliant only on a capabilities approach. See my reply to Michael, above. It was introduced in the main to contrast the breadth of that approach with the narrow argument presented by @Rank Amateur. But it is an interest of mine, and this thread has led me back to considering it as a useful approach to ethics.
So I really don't intend to argue for the capabilities approach here in this thread. It's just a framework on which to hang a critique of anti-abortionist ideas.
Secondly, the article is a snippet of the literature on the capabilities approach. If you would like more, I suggest you go to Google rather than I. The reply will be much quicker.
Thirdly, my understanding of Nussbaum is that she clearly rejects the notion of degrees of dignity. Further, the purpose she sets herself is not to find out what is the case, but to fathom what we should do.
And finally, you might well suppose that the argument turns on dignity; but that's just one way of expressing the belief in supporting an adult woman over a cyst. That is the central sentiment here.
Ah. Perhaps this is what is going one: I am being read as advocating that a foetus is less capable than a human, and hence less entitled to be treated with dignity. As an argument according to degree.
No.
In the argument he presented @Rank Amateur posited that the reason for not killing a human was found in its future value, and hence by extension, the reason for not killing of a foetus was found in its future. I cited the capabilities approach in contrast to this. The worth of a person ought to be taken as read; they are to be treated as an ends, not as a means. We ought then act in ways that lead to actualisation of the capabilities of each person. What a person is, is found in those capabilities.
The point is to bring to the fore the actual capabilities of the woman involved in the pregnancy, to place these centrally in the discussion of what we ought do, and to contrast them with the lack of capability of the foetus, which renders it of only minor moral consideration.
This is in contrast to an approach that gives priority to the foetus, ignoring the role of the woman.
And I will go further and say that I am convinced that those who insist in denying choice to that woman in deference to the cyst are acting immorally. That is, that what they are doing is wrong.
What about after 10 days when the blastocyst becomes an embryo, or after 10 weeks when the embryo becomes a foetus?
And if pro-life proponents genuinely believe that the blastocyst has the right to come to term, is it right to say that they are acting immorally rather than just, in your view, being mistaken about the facts? Is it immoral to incorrectly believe that something has rights it doesn't actually have?
And if pro-life proponents genuinely believe that the blastocyst has the right to come to term, is it right to say that they are acting immorally rather than just, in your view, being mistaken about the facts? Is it immoral to incorrectly believe that something has rights it doesn't actually have?
They might be mistaken as to the facts right up until they act on their understanding. Then they are acting immorally.
They might be mistaken as to the facts right up until they act on their understanding. Then they are acting immorally.
So it’s unlike the hypothetical case of a police officer shooting someone they believe, incorrectly, to be carrying a gun, when it’s actually a toy - a scenario that I’m sure many will say is unfortunate, but one in which the genuine belief of the officer, even though mistaken, can undercut accusations of immoral behaviour.
Rank AmateurJanuary 23, 2019 at 10:54#2493550 likes
This is in contrast to an approach that gives priority to the foetus, ignoring the role of the woman.
As I mentioned at the end of the argument it does not address the right of the fetus to the use of the woman's body, that is a different discussion.
However before we discuss that, we need to understand what the fetus is. Because it impacts that discussion. It is a different argument if it is or is not something with a claim to life.
Happy to have that claim.
Rank AmateurJanuary 23, 2019 at 10:58#2493560 likes
This seems an existence question: does there exist such a circumstance, such a reason? We might first ask what counts as "morally justified"? But there is a simple reason usually adduced: when the mother at risk. Done? Is that it?
No, we can get there. But not from my argument. In the next argument,that is the fetus does have a right to live, does it have ar right to the use of the woman's body. Different argument, but yes at the end of that argument I would say life of the mother and after rape would be morally permissible
Rank AmateurJanuary 23, 2019 at 11:01#2493570 likes
No, we can get there. But not from my argument. In the next argument,that is the fetus does have a right to live, does it have ar right to the use of the woman's body. Different argument, but yes at the end of that argument I would say life of the mother and after rape would be morally permissible
Rank AmateurJanuary 23, 2019 at 11:07#2493580 likes
Reply to tim wood pardon my ignorance, can you explain the objection again so an idiot and rank amateur like myself can understand it. It is, and has been the most published pro life argument ever, has been around 30 years, and I have read many many objections to it, but have never seen that one.
Rank AmateurJanuary 23, 2019 at 11:15#2493590 likes
[quote="Banno;249272"]Rank Amateur's desire is to have the argument expressed in terms that suit him. Don't play along.
How about you show where the propositions are false, or the conclusion does not follow, or the argument is incomplete and fallacious because .... and support your because.
Make an argument specifically why your cyst does not have a right to its existence. So far I have only seen pronouncements stated as fact.
Seems a pattern on TPF. If one makes an argument one doesn't like, dismiss it out of hand, and restate your own position.
It is relevant because it is a realistic often occurring result of creating a child.
Creating more children is just going to create more children in that situation and not alleviate the situation.
If child welfare was so high on the anti-abortionist agenda then why are so many children in dire circumstances? Children can only suffer because they are created.
Would you stop mindlessly repeating this hasty generalisation? A hasty generalisation is a fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. That's exactly what you and the others on the forum who share your position do. That life isn't worth living for only [i]a comparatively small[/I] number of people doesn't justify your conclusion, nor does cherry picking, undue emphasis, or exaggeration of one side.
Please consider this the next time you go to the keyboard to type up the same tired point. You need to break out of this bad habit, as do the others.
I don't think it right to say that human dignity inheres in anything. Rather, like any value, it's projected onto others by us. Some value the life of a foetus, others don't. On what grounds can one group say that the other group is wrong?
Indeed. There is not an "essence" of dignity to be found in anyone or anything. The other group can only be "wrong" relative to a set of prioritised values, and prioritised values aren't objective, they stem from emotion.
Deleted UserJanuary 23, 2019 at 15:28#2493900 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 23, 2019 at 15:51#2493980 likes
In the argument he presented Rank Amateur posited that the reason for not killing a human was found in its future value, and hence by extension, the reason for not killing of a foetus was found in its future. I cited the capabilities approach in contrast to this. The worth of a person ought to be taken as read; they are to be treated as an ends, not as a means. We ought then act in ways that lead to actualisation of the capabilities of each person. What a person is, is found in those capabilities.
Mrs Banno in the wine cellar with a gun
Last night Banno goes down into his cellar in search of a 2012 Screaming Eagle Cab to celebrate a particularly good day on TPF. When he get to the cellar he spots the bottle on the top shelf just out of his reach. Being an impatient sort, instead of getting the step stool, he places his foot on the bottom shelf and reaches up for the desired bottle. Sadly though, the entire rack comes crashing down on poor Banno, and he lays, conscienceless in pool of blood, wine and glass on the floor of the cellar.
Mrs Banno hearing the crash, runs down to the cellar to find the aforementioned Banno. She kneels down and says Banno can you hear me ? Nothing back. Banno can you see me? Nothing back. Banno how much is 10 divided by 5? Nothing. Banno get up, move ? Still nothing. Banno do you know who you are ? And still nothing. At this moment in time poor Banno is just a lump of biological tissue lying motionless on the cellar floor.
Now Mrs Banno, remembering Banno’s point about capabilities, and the inference that biology does not make a person, has an idea. You see although Mrs Banno freely married Banno a few years ago she regrets the decision. Banno just sits on the sofa with a lap top on TPF all day, living in the warm house and eating all the food, and drinking all the good wine that Mrs Banno provides. She wants out. However she shares Banno’s impatience and does not want to go through the process of a divorce. Does not want to wait, or heaven forbid change her mind. So she runs upstairs and gets the gun they keep in the hall closest in case in their future they may have needed against a possible attacker, and goes back to the cellar and shoots Banno in the head.
3 month later
Mrs Banno , acting as her own attorney, begins her closing argument. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury , I did not kill Banno, he was no longer present in that mass of biological tissue on the floor. I asked him question after question and got no response. So that was not Banno the human being there - it was not much more than just a large cyst, or organ. Banno himself was not a believer in potentiality, the fact that some time in the future he may have awoken has no bearing on the case at all. And Banno has no believe at all that he actually had a future, he lost nothing . Killing him in that state was no different than me cutting my nails, or cutting my hair.
Rank AmateurJanuary 23, 2019 at 15:57#2494030 likes
A better example comes from your own post:
,that is the fetus does have a right to live, does it have a right to the use of the woman's body.
— Rank Amateur
Where do you get the idea the fetus has any rights? In Roe v. Wade it's argued that such have potential rights coincident with the rights they would actually have if and when born alive, but not until. That's the US Supreme Court, referring to practice "from time immemorial
Most briefly, it's a hypothetical argument. All of the important premises are granted uncritically. With such an argument you can prove anything you want to prove. It may not be immediately apparent how that can be. Suppose I wish to suppose the moon is made of green cheese. Let's accept as given, even prima facie, as Marquis says, that the moon is made of green cheese. Therefore the moon is made of... & etc. QED. And I hold the entire FOV argument to be a thing claimed and assumed, but in no way demonstrated or prove or even subjected to critical thought.
Understanding your point, is the hypothetical you are assuming Dr Marquies makes is:
a. we adult human beings do not have a future of value, as he defines as a the collection of future experiences etc etc etc
if not a - b. are not in possession of that future - for some reason
if none of the above can you cite the specific hypothetical you are referencing so I can address
Rank AmateurJanuary 23, 2019 at 17:15#2494250 likes
A better example comes from your own post:
,that is the fetus does have a right to live, does it have a right to the use of the woman's body.
— Rank Amateur
Where do you get the idea the fetus has any rights? In Roe v. Wade it's argued that such have potential rights coincident with the rights they would actually have if and when born alive, but not until. That's the US Supreme Court, referring to practice "from time immemorial."
here is the argument:
The Violinist in the coma
An argument and rebuttals on the fetus right to the use of the woman’s body – heavily borrowed from Dr. Judith Thomson
P1
Even granting, only for the sake of this argument, that the fetus is such a thing that it has a right to exist, this right does not mean that the woman, with rights of her own, has any obligation to supply the fetus with the use of her body.
In defense of this proposition Dr. Thompson proposes the following though experiment.
On the way home from the symphony last night, I was attacked. Hit over the head, had a bag placed over my head, dragged into a van an given a shot that rendered me un-conscience. I wake up some time later on a gurney, with a tube in my arm, taking my blood - putting it through some machine and then pumping it into another person on another gurney to my left. I look over and at once recognize him as the greatest violinist in the world.
My captors, apologize, identify themselves and tell me they are the family and friends of the violinist. It seems he has a fatal condition, that they all thought was incurable. But found out through a fit of luck that there was an antibody only existent in my blood, that if he was given continually for a period of 9 months would completely cure him. Knowing that I was an aficionado, they assume I would be more than willing to stay here and allow the violinist the use of my blood for 9 month. Although there will be some discomfort, they will do all they can to make me as comfortable during the process as possible. They also state, that do to the unique nature of the situation , and me being the only person in the world who can save him, I have a moral obligation to stay connected to the violinist and save his life.
I say while I do agree that the violinist is great, and while understanding the uniqueness of the situation. Me being in this situation was not an act of my free will. I made no judgment or made no act that says I should be in this condition - rip out the tube and leave.
P1 – amended - Even granting, only for the sake of this argument, that the fetus is such a thing that it has a right to exist, this right does not mean that the woman, with rights of her own, has any obligation to supply the fetus with the use of her body when through no act of her own is placed in the situation where the fetus needs the use of her body
Abortion in cases of rape is not immoral, and I agree
P2 Even granting, only for the sake of this argument, that the fetus is such a thing that it has a right to exist, this right does not mean that the woman, with rights of her own, has any obligation to supply the fetus with the use of her body, even if she is at least in part agreed to the situation if it can cause her serious harm.
Same though experiment as above – only. I wasn’t abducted. The family comes to me, tell the situation. I am an aficionado, I agree. We get attached to each other all is going well. Until at month 3 I start feeling bad. I am feeling weaker and weaker. Having trouble breathing. I ask the family what is going on, they apologize, say they didn’t know this could happen - but it turns out taking out your antibodies is hurting you. The doctors are unsure to what degree – maybe even will kill you, but it will definitely cause you some amount of harm, and that harm will be permanent.
I rip out the tube and limp out of there to my doctor
P2 is agreed - in the case of some degree permanent or prolonged harm to the mother abortion is morally permissible . It impossible to identify exactly for every instance what that is, so there is some element of judgment or reasonableness here.
P3. Even granting, only for the sake of this argument, that the fetus is such a thing that it has a right to exist, this right does not mean that the woman, with rights of her own, has any obligation to supply the fetus with the use of her body. Even if freely entering into the situation – simply because she so desires.
Same violinist, same situation. Except this time I promised the family I would see this through. I freely get connected to the violinist. It is going along just as described all is going well. Then at month 1, my best friend comes to visit. Great guy. And we both love the now Los Angeles Rams. He is holding 2 tickets to the super bowl, 50 yard line, 10 rows up. Passes to 3 parties super bowl week as well, Maxim, ESPN and Playboy. 2 suites for the week in Atlanta and first class, no make that a private jet, to and from. I told you he was a good friend.
I rip out the tube and follow my friend out the door
P3 is not agreed.
My counter argument.
P1.
Adult human beings who knowingly and freely undertake some action, are responsible for the results of that action.
P2.
Entering into some action, with a known possible result, is an implied acceptance of the possibility of that result.
P3
Becoming pregnant is a known possible outcome of having sex. Properly using an effective method of birth control, can greatly and nearly eliminate this possibility - but it is a known possibility none the less.
P4.
As given for the sake of this argument, the fetus is such a thing as to have right to life. Pregnancy entails the dependency on the use of the mothers body to support such a thing with a right to life, and as above is a known possible outcome.
Conclusion: Freely entered into, sex is an implied agreement to possible known outcomes of this action. A know possible outcome of sex is the dependence on another human beings life on the use of ones body. Since we are responsible for the known outcomes of our actions. There is implied consent for the use of the mothers body, and unless in the situations already agreed, abortion is immoral.
Rank AmateurJanuary 23, 2019 at 17:48#2494380 likes
SO my question again: where do you get your idea that the fetus has rights?
so Tim there is a logical order of these arguments and not taking them in order just adds confusion and lack of clarity to what is being discussed. Kind of like a Rudy Giuliani press conference.
So here it is with my position on each point.
1. Is abortion in all cases moral or immoral.
a. The fetus is such a thing as has a right to life,
b. The fetus is such a thing as to not have a right to life
c. The fetus is such a thing in not all, but in nearly all cases as to have a right to life. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SERVERLY HANDICAPED FETUS AS CAN BE DETERMINED - I FIND THE ARGUMENT OF FUTURE VALUE CONVINCING.
if b, no other discussions needed - abortion argument is over
if a, c
2. Does the fetus have the right to the use of the mothers body
a. No, for any reason whatsoever, the fetus has no claim on the use of
the mothers body
b. Yes the fetus does have a right to the woman's body
c. Depended on some set of circumstances I AGREE, IN THE CASE OF RAPE(VERY VERY BROADLY DEFINED, LIFE OF, OR SERIOUS INJURY TO THE MOTHER THE FETUS HAS NO RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE WOMAN'S BODY, BUT IN MOST CASES THE WOMAN HAS GIVEN IMPLIED CONSENT TO THE USE OF HER BODY
if a, no other discussion needed - abortion argument is over
if b or c
3. Abortion is immoral, should it be legal
Legal and moral are second cousins as best. I will easily admit that even if one was to show the abortion was generally immoral, that does not generally mean it should be illegal. There are any number a lesser of evil arguments that can be made against the doing away with legal abortion.
Not the least of which, in a democracy it could just be a preference.
MY POSITION IS, ABORTION IN MOST CASES IS IMMORAL, AND THAT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT. I BELIEVE THAT SINCE ROW V WADE, THERE HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN CONTRACEPTION. I BELIEVE ABORTION DUE TO ITS IMMORALITY SHOULD BE A DIFFICULT ALTERNATIVE AND NOT VIEWED AS A METHOD OF CONTRACEPTION. BY MAKING ABORTION MORE DIFFICULT, IT WILL INCREASE THE NEED FOR AND THE DESIRE FOR BETTER USE OF CONTRACEPTION.
IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN DIRECTLY, BUT IN EFFECT ROE V WADE SHOULD BE SUPPER CEDED AND THE DECISION TO ALLOW ABORTION BE RETURNED TO THE STATES. WHEN THIS HAPPENS - MANY STATES WILL AND SOME STATES WILL NOT. LEGAL ABORTIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE US BECAUSE IN MANY PLACES THAT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
HOPEFULLY IN SUCH A WORLD WITH HARDER ACCESS TO ABORTION, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EFFORT WILL BE PUT INTO EDUCATION, AVAILABILITY , AND RESPONSIBLE USE OF CONTRACEPTION.
Notice how this post utterly ignores the impact that pregnancy has on the involved woman, treating her as a passive receptacle.
There's no point arguing with such an insane statement.
Rank AmateurJanuary 23, 2019 at 21:42#2495560 likes
Reply to Banno thanks I admittedly skimmed the article twice - and in general I applaud the CA approach as way of evaluating a quality of life in a nation. Now I understand this article is making a legal case, not a philosophic argument on morality. But like many on here the key determinate factors on extending this case to the woman's absolute autonomy over decisions on the use of her body hinge on 2 ideas, one is addressed, but not supported, and the other is unsaid.
The first is the nature of the fetus: the article says :
"Under the CA itself, it is plausible to make similar arguments about the standing of the
fetus. A CA sees human beings with severe cognitive disabilities as full equals in human dignity.
It also recognizes that dignity is not the private possession of the human species: each animal
species possesses a type of dignity. And while the fetus does not possess a great deal in the way
of agency, it does appear to have a stronger claim to agency than a person in a permanent
vegetative condition (not a bearer of dignity, according to the CA), because it is at least
potentially sentient and an agent. So it would seem inconsistent if the CA refused all moral status
to the fetus."
all good
"And indeed the CA does recognize that the fetus possesses a type of human
dignity—although its dependent and merely potential status means that its type of dignity is
distinctive, and not directly commensurable with that of independent human beings."
It is assumed, and for all I know legally correct, to assume due to potentiality or dependence one is due a lesser amount of human dignity. However the point is just made as a given and not supported. I would opine on here that as a matter of philosophy of ethics/morality it is far from a settled point that potentiality of dependence reduce the level of human dignity.
Secondly, the article speaks to the effect of pregnancy on the woman and the effect on her ability to decide the nature of future life. It says:
"A similar analysis also applies, under a CA, in circumstances where a woman claims that
if she were denied access to an abortion, she would lose all meaningful chance to determine the
future shape of her life.37 Not only would a woman in such circumstances lose the opportunity to
exercise a central human capability—i.e., her capacity for practical reason. The possibility that
this could occur, even where sex is fully protected, could also serve to discourage women more
generally from forming the kind of intimate relationship, or seeking the kind of sexual pleasure,
that is integral to the opportunity for a life worthy of full human dignity. "
what is omitted in this is adult actions, freely taken have consequences. If these consequences are reasonably predictable as possible, the adult is responsible for them. Pregnancy is a predictable consequence of sex, even with contraception, and as such adults that engage in sex are responsible for the consequences.
Again, the woman (or
women) in this context also invoke(s) the same type of normative claim that is made on behalf of he fetus, but the asymmetry between a potential and an actual being suggests that, pre-viability, the woman’s claim should in general prevail.
Again - they without support place the woman's claim above the fetus, as above based on potentiality and dependency.
The entire argument is based on an unsupported assumption that the fetus is due lesser rights than the women. While this is a legal reality in most of the developed world, that does not make it moral or immoral it just makes it legal.
I'm not interested in defending the capabilities approach. It's of interest here only because it provides another way of looking at the worth of a person, to contrast to the impoverished future of value @Rank Amateur offered.
Maybe in another thread. It's an interesting contrast to utilitarianism.
The core issue is that those who oppose abortion choose to treat a foetus as a person.
Now a foetus is not a person.
If you disagree, ask yourself why.
Perhaps it is because you believe that the soul enters the body at conception, and hence your belief about abortion has a religious motivation. Well and good - that strikes me as far more honest than hiding your motive behind fey philosophy.
But if you do find yourself developing ad hoc philosophical theories specifically to show that a foetus is a person, Take some time to reflect on what you are doing.
I guess I'm left to assume that you do think a soul enters the baby(sic.) at conception. It's this belief that prevents you from seeing that a foetus is not a person.
That's the whole of the story. Your other supposedly secular arguments are ad hoc defences of your basic position, a result of your religious perspective.
@Rank Amateur, and any one else who adheres to the Future of Value argument, show that it is not an ad hoc defence of a religious position by presenting an example of where it is used outside the abortion debate.
And, again, to be clear, I introduced the capacities approach into this thread in order to contrast its breadth of applicability to that of the future of value argument.
Rank AmateurJanuary 23, 2019 at 23:37#2496160 likes
Reply to tim wood Tim not sure how much of my posts you have read, but in the last one I address legality. And acknowledge that even if abortion in many cases is immoral that does not automatically mean it should be illegal. Take a look. Moral and legal are different things.
Rank AmateurJanuary 24, 2019 at 11:19#2497130 likes
Reply to Banno point to consider, other than euthanasia, which is briefly addressed, but not particularly problematic, I can not think of another example where we would need to defend the un justified taking of life due to the Future Value argument, can you?
I would propose this more directly points to the unique set of criteria we devise to kill fetuses, than it does with some theist conspiracy.
Also, if you have even skimmed by posts, you would see I believe in contraception, find abortion in case of rape, and significant health issues for the mother moral, and have overtly said it should not be defacto made illegal. My pope would not approve of my positions.
I stand by for your next completely unsupported proclamation, on Banno's opinion forum.
Deleted UserJanuary 24, 2019 at 14:23#2497430 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
It seems to me that you either maintain that life matters from the moment of conception, or it matters from some other, entirely arbitrary, point in a human being’s development. That arbitrariness indicates that the pro-abortion view is part of the usual selfism that appears to govern the beliefs and actions of most people. Those who favour it do so because they have taken, or can see themselves taking, advantage of such a freedom. Those possessed of stronger self-awareness and moral imagination are more inclined to oppose it.
And it’s probably worth adding that Christopher Hitchens opposed abortion, so clearly the view isn’t always religiously motivated.
Rank AmateurJanuary 24, 2019 at 15:02#2497580 likes
So here you are: Rank Amateur will now demonstrate the immorality of abortion.
I have made (robbed) my arguments both for the the morality of abortion based on the nature of the fetus, and the use of the mothers body, and I have also addressed the legality of abortion. If a complete argument with premises and conclusions. Open to be objected to as un-true or unreasonable. If this is a rant - we could use more ranting on TPF.
Every objection you have made to these arguments were either addressed in the argument itself that you missed, or it was an indirect statement about the nature of the argument that omitted in any specific way what premise was un-true or the conclusion was unreasonable.
From my perspective I am disappointed in the amount of completely unsupported opinion I have received in rebuttal, considering your initial plea that we do philosophy on this thread.
If there has actually been a direct response to any argument I have made - i have missed it. Nor have I seen any structured argument to refute it.
We can all make judgement on what is moral or immoral - that is the basic definition of morality - the goodness or badness of an act as judged by others. That however does not make morality individual or completely relative.
My take or Roe v Wade is, the case was more about states rights than it was about abortion. My views on it are almost completely in line with Justice Scalia's, his many comments on it that are easy to find. Basically it was an overreach by the court, for an issue the constitution says should be a states right to decide - i am more swayed by originalism interpretations of the constitution. And agree on this as well. Now it is important to note that even it Roe v Wade was overturned, which will not happen by the way, it would not make abortion illegal in the US - it would just return it to the states to decide. In such an instance it is almost a certainty that many states will vote to allow abortion. And as a citizen in a democracy I would have no objection to that. That IMO is the process working.
What will happen now, with a more originalnist court, states will continue to push the abortion issue to limit funding or in any number of ways make it more difficult in their states. They will hope for someone with standing to challenge them, in order to get the issue of abortion being a state right or as it stands now and interpretation of the privacy clause of the 14th amendment.
So my view on Roe v Wade, is it was an overreach by the court on the interpretation of the privacy clause of the 14th amendment and as such was a case of legislation from the bench. The issue of abortion should be an issue determined by the states, or if one feels that is specifically should not be, like slavery, than like slavery, they should amend the constitution.
Rank AmateurJanuary 24, 2019 at 15:30#2497710 likes
Scalia's partial concurrence in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992:
"The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. ...
"Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since. And by keeping us in the abortion umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any pax Roeana, that the Court's new majority decrees."
Scalia's concurrence in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 1989:
"We can now look forward to at least another Term with carts full of mail from the public, and streets full of demonstrators, urging us — their unelected and life-tenured judges who have been awarded those extraordinary, undemocratic characteristics precisely in order that we might follow the law despite the popular will — to follow the popular will. ...
"It thus appears that the mansion of constitutionalized abortion law, constructed overnight in Roe v. Wade, must be disassembled doorjamb by doorjamb, and never entirely brought down, no matter how wrong it may be."
Andrew4HandelJanuary 24, 2019 at 18:41#2497980 likes
I don't see why it is acceptable to create a life and not acceptable to end a life.
Why does someone have the right to create someone without that persons consent and expose them to suffering?
A fetus does not express desires and we can only speculate about what it might think about existing. It that is the nature of creating someone.
Rank AmateurJanuary 24, 2019 at 19:12#2498050 likes
A fetus does not express desires and we can only speculate about what it might think about existing. It that is the nature of creating someone.
So andrew there is the concept of "ideal desire" . It goes something like this. I am in an accident, and require life support. I am unconscious and unresponsive. They ask me if I desire life support - I say nothing, I am unable to express my desire because I am handicapped by the injury. The concept of ideal desire is what would i want if the handicap was removed. If I were able to express my desire, i would desire the life support to save my life.
If you apply this concept to the fetus, who is handicapped by their stage of development, and ask if the fetus was not so handicapped would it desire to live. The answer would be yes.
Now the counter back is, one must have knowledge of what one might desire before the handicap in order to desire it at all. The fetus having no knowledge of life or death yet does not, so ideal desire does not apply
this argument is countered by, Lack of knowledge is just another handicap. If you take the first example, of me needing life support, and instead of me it is a aboriginal person who has know knowledge of such a thing as life support, Ideal desire would still apply if he could, he would desire it.
It's so much easier to critique if you start by misinterpreting.
It's so much easier to repeat a sound bite than to explain why you think that something is a misinterpretation. If you're suggesting that it's a false analogy, then I would be interested if you were to spell out why you think so. Granted, it's a person in one case but not in the other. It doesn't have to be. Granted, you don't judge them to have anything even approaching the same level of moral worth. You don't have to. And you should know as well as I do that I don't believe in fiction like souls and rarely set out to defend religion, so it would be interesting, to say the least, if you were to go down that route with me.
People claim to be appalled by abortion but then they tolerate this:
Assuming they do tolerate child neglect and do nothing to alleviate it, or, better yet, assume they actually advocate child abuse and also are opposed to abortion, that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is justified. The best you've shown is that there are some fucked up hypocrites in the world.
It seems to me that you either maintain that life matters from the moment of conception, or it matters from some other, entirely arbitrary, point in a human being’s development. That arbitrariness indicates that the pro-abortion view is part of the usual selfism that appears to govern the beliefs and actions of most people. Those who favour it do so because they have taken, or can see themselves taking, advantage of such a freedom. Those possessed of stronger self-awareness and moral imagination are more inclined to oppose it.
Yes, those who oppose choice have a tendency to reject any nuance or subtlety, much preferring the reassurance of strong lines; it deadens the fear that motivates much of conservative thinking. That this corresponds with the general attitudes of misogynist puritanical theology is a bonus, of course.
Yes, those who oppose choice have a tendency to reject any nuance or subtlety
The same can be said of the pro-choice who accuse the pro-life of dictating what women can do with their bodies. Do we not all admonish pregnant women who smoke, drink alcohol, or eat rare steak?
And in admonishing pregnant women who smoke, drink alcohol, or eat rare steak, are we not precisely considering the future potential of the foetus? Is it reasonable to prevent future suffering but not reasonable to prevent future non-existence? We certainly seem to care enough about future non-existence that we’d fight to prevent extinction.
Reply to Michael Mmm, I love the taste of irony, don't you? Unimaginatively fixating on present status of personhood, as if that were the be-all and end-all.
Reply to Michael I entirely agree. If one wishes for a healthy child, one ought take such considerations. If. A person is an end in themselves; a foetus a means to an end.
It seems to me that you either maintain that life matters from the moment of conception, or it matters from some other, entirely arbitrary, point in a human being’s development
Your comment does properly recognize that the pro-choice crowd uses an arbitrary moment to define when human life begins, but you fail to recognize that the pro-life crowd does as well. Conception is an arbitrary moment to declare the existence of human life, as is quickening. as is the trimester framework.
If it is so clear, then you must explain why killing a live sperm or live egg is not murder, or why killing any live cell on a human body is not murder.
If. A person is an end in themselves; a foetus a means to an end.
You assume your conclusion in you argument, namely that a fetus is not a person. That seems to be the issue in dispute. If one takes a fetus to be a person, it cannot be an means to an end.
I entirely agree. If one wishes for a healthy child, one ought take such considerations. If. A person is an end in themselves; a foetus a means to an end.
Thanks for raising that point.
Yet that tends not to by why we condemn pregnant women who smoke. It’s nothing like the person who decides to kick a football against a window where we’re assuming that they’ll be set back if it breaks. We condemn pregnant women who smoke because we care about how it will affect the growth of the foetus for the sake of the future child, not for the sake of the thoughtless mother.
“A disabled child will be such a burden. Do you really want that responsibility?” That’s a pretty callous perspective. Is that really all it is for you?
We condemn pregnant women who smoke because we care about how it will affect the growth of the foetus for the sake of the future child, not the sake of the thoughtless mother.
The law is consistent with only people having rights. The fetus could not sue for its injuries, only the injured child could. What we're concerned about when expectant mothers drink and smoke is not deformed fetuses, but deformed children. Partying moms to be yield people like you.
Since I'm a lawyer, and law is all I like to talk about, I'd also point out that wrongful life suits are generally not recognized, and when they are, there are limitations (except apparently by the Dutch). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_life That is, you can generally not sue because you were born and argue they ought to have aborted you knowing how bad off you'd be. That is such a lovely concept, though, son's advocate suing mom for not aborting him when she had the chance.
Reply to Hanover In my view, whether or not it's a person is irrelevant. Persons aren't the only thing of value. Other things are of value in relation to people. What we're discussing is one of them in the eyes of many, and understandably so.
You assume your conclusion in you argument, namely that a fetus is not a person. That seems to be the issue in dispute. If one takes a fetus to be a human, it cannot be an means to an end.
True. It's not my conclusion, but my starting point. A foetus does not have the characteristics one would reasonably associate with being a person - autonomy, rationality, and so on, whatever you like. A personality.
The only reason I'm aware of that a blastocyst might be endowed with personhood is if one supposes that it has a soul, or some other metaphysical characteristic. But since this is empirically untestable, it is irrelevant. Hence the convoluted arguments on the part of those who would rate the foetus over the woman.
A sperm, an egg or a random cell are not human beings. Left to themselves they do not become anything more than what they are.
Each cell grows and each organ grows, so they do become more than what they are.
Regardless, you're adding arbitrary rules here. Previously you claimed that a embryo was entitled to protection under the law because it was human life, but now I'm to learn it must be human life that is capable of becoming something else. As I've pointed out, my liver satisfies your definition, so you'll need to continue working out the nuances of your definition.
What we're concerned about when expectant mothers drink and smoke is not deformed fetuses, but deformed children.
So we're concerned about the potential future of the foetus (to be a deformed child). Yet a lot of those who are pro-life say that it isn't reasonable to consider the potential future of the foetus (to be a child) to determine that abortion is wrong. I'm highlighting the apparent inconsistency between these two positions.
A liver is not a human being. Neither, as far as I’m aware, is it made of a single cell. A human being is one of us, from the point at which we begin to develop, which is the moment of conception, right?
Rank AmateurJanuary 24, 2019 at 22:03#2498850 likes
But more to this point. Marquis's argument seems a real tar-baby for you. But there's an effective solvent ready to hand. Just wash your hands of it. You know his argument. Own it and rebuild it without his presumptions.
Tim - after giving lot of time for others to do this, in the spirit of the honest exchange of ideas I will help you all with the best argument I know against the FVOL argument -
In his book the A Defense of Abortion Danial Boonin acknowledges that the FVOL argument has the most potential to be used to develop a successful argument for the claim that the fetus has a right to life at conception (somehow in this maybe the best total work on the subject of abortion he missed both your logic and hypothetical objection - you should drop him a line and point it out to him)
He argues that any Pro-Choicer who hopes to defeat Marquis’ argument must construct an
argument that does all three of the following:
1) It identifies an alternative property that accounts for the wrongness of killing
infants, suicidal teenagers, temporarily comatose adults, and paradigm persons.
2) It shows that the alternative property is preferable to Marquis’ property, especially
in terms of offering an account that best explains the wrongness of killing.
3) It shows that the fetus does not possess this alternative property (or that it doesn’t
possess the property during the period of gestation in which the majority of
abortions take place)
He does this by delineating a line in the pregnancy at about the 25 week point where the fetus
begins to have organized cortical brain activity. And his argument is establishing a different criteria for the ideal desire argument.
and it goes something like this - a being must have at least some actual desires to be attributed any
ideal desires.
to me this is just a subtle change in the ideal desire argument that one must have a knowledge of the desire first.
I don't find this objection sufficient - others might.
And certainly others can do a better job of explaining it, my honesty only goes so far - but there is where to look if you want the best argument against FVOL.
Last aside - I don't even think Boonin thought it was all that good an argument. And spends way more time and think comes closest supporting Judith Thomsons argument on the use of the woman's body.
True. It's not my conclusion, but my starting point.
Then your conclusion is your starting point. If you start with the idea that only people have rights and that fetuses aren't people, then what's there to debate? I'd think the issue for debate would be whether your definition of "people" is sustainable, especially in light of the fact that many of those we consider "people" do not have the attributes you list. For example, an infant, a coma patient, a severely brain injured person, a drunk person, an asleep person, and many others would not be rational or autonomous. I could accuse you of ensouling people as well, arguing that the reason such people are afforded rights is that they have that magical sprinkling of humanity in them, call it a soul or what you will.
Reply to Hanover Neither. I'm simply saying that there's a relatable basis for seeing this "thing" as valuable, irrespective of whether or not it's classified as a person.
“A disabled child will be such a burden. Do you really want that responsibility?” That’s a pretty callous perspective. Is that really all it is for you?
Not at all. Indeed, the Capacities approach has been taken on board by disabilities advocates precisely because it seeks to have each person treated well.
So we're concerned about the potential future of the foetus (to be a deformed child). Yet earlier Banno was saying that it isn't reasonable to consider the potential future of the foetus (to be a child) to determine that abortion is wrong. I'm highlighting the apparent inconsistency between these two positions.
I'm not sure it is inconsistent. Only people can sue, not fetuses, so if you abort the fetus, it never gained any rights to do anything. The thing that sues is the person, complaining his mother smoked, the factory produced noxious fumes, or drug company failed to warn mothers of the dangers.
Your comment does properly recognize that the pro-choice crowd uses an arbitrary moment to define when human life begins, but you fail to recognize that the pro-life crowd does as well. Conception is an arbitrary moment to declare the existence of human life, as is quickening. as is the trimester framework
in my argument, and in subsequent accounts Dr. Marquis uses something about 2 weeks after the process of conception, around 16 cells, after the prospect of twining has past as the establishment of the a unique human organism.
I'm not sure it is inconsistent. Only people can sue, not fetuses, so if you abort the fetus, it never gained any rights to do anything. The thing that sues is the person, complaining his mother smoked, the factory produced noxious fumes, or drug company failed to warn mothers of the dangers.
I'm not making an argument from the law. I'm making an argument about what we value.
Reply to S While the capabilities approach has similarities to Kant, it is distinct.
And it is actions, not beliefs, that are moral. What would be immoral is preventing a woman from exercising her own choice because of a misguided believe in souls.
Reply to AJJ I don't mean to be rude, but who cares? If I throw my acorn in the bin, then my acorn won't grow into an oak tree. Alternatively, I could've planted it in my garden and had a lovely oak tree at some point down the line. Acorns are not oak trees, therefore they're worthless? Cuckoo.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 24, 2019 at 22:17#2498990 likes
. The concept of ideal desire is what would i want if the handicap was removed. If I were able to express my desire, i would desire the life support to save my life.
I think if you save someone's life who is unconscious after an accident then you are acting on your desires not there's. (Unless they have left a living will)
If you want to imagine what someone might ideally desire that is a quagmire. There are lots of things people might desire and not achieve or things they might want to change about themselves. Would a child want to grow up in poverty for example? Would a child want to have a large nose or autism or live in religious household or country?
It is not clear what life someone might choose for themselves if they knew all the facts about life.You can only create a child based on your own desires and standards (or lack thereof)
Rank AmateurJanuary 24, 2019 at 22:17#2499000 likes
. A foetus does not have the characteristics one would reasonably associate with being a person - autonomy, rationality, and so on, whatever you like. A personality.
The embodied mind, a the definition of a person, which you are almost making here, is IMO the only logical argument for delineating a non-arbitrary criteria for "personhood".
The only problem most people have with it, is it also allows infanticide. In general - that is a little offsetting
Rank AmateurJanuary 24, 2019 at 22:21#2499030 likes
Reply to Andrew4Handel no disrespect but I am not sure you are understanding the concept correctly.
The concept is what others should assume the person would desire, if they were capable of understanding and communicating their desires.
Reply to Banno It may well be distinct, but what you said to me in your last reply was straight from Kant, word for word. But regardless, my point stands even if you swap "Kant" for "capabilities".
And if "prevention" doesn't make your other comment a straw man, "soul" definitely does. I refer you back to my previous posts. "It's much easier to critique if you start by misinterpreting". Yet more inadvertent irony. When you say such things, do you ever wonder whether they'll come back and bite you in the arse?
Rank AmateurJanuary 24, 2019 at 22:36#2499160 likes
sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
i have now been back of that document 3 or 4 times and I cant see where Ms. Nussbaun uses those criteria to establish anything with relation to the fetus obtaining personhood. I only saw them used once
here:
the CA understands the basis of human dignity far more inclusively: human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, and appetite as well as in rationality
in the context of adults in a society.
Not my article and I certainly could be missing the place she applies it to the fetus, but i cant find it. If it would not be too much trouble could you give me your definitions of what those things mean. Or copy and past in context the part of her paper you are alluding to.
Reply to Banno That argument relies on hidden premises. Assuming validity, I doubt I'd accept them all. If the person is grossly irresponsible, then they should be discouraged from abortion and encouraged to deal which the situation in a better way. And intervention is justified in some cases.
Reply to AJJ Okay, not necessarily worthless, but worthless enough to throw in the bin, if that's what you're getting at with this classification business. If that's not what you're getting at, then what are you getting at? If it's worthless enough to throw in the bin because it's not an oak tree, then what will be the outcome in terms of my garden? Sure, I could just get another acorn, but that's where the analogy breaks down, because oak trees aren't quite as specially unique in the way that we think of individual people.
Oh wait, sorry, I'm just not reading your comment properly. "One of us from the moment of conception". Although I'm making the point that you and the others are arguing over the wrong thing. It's not even about that kind of classification at that period in time in my view.
Reply to Rank Amateur A google search will reveal the range of Nussbaum's writings, and a collection of videos and podcasts for the non-reader.
I'm not here to defend her, or for that matter to advocate the capabilities approach. It's purpose here is to contrast with the shallow, ad hoc FOV view you advocated; and to show that there are much more subtle and useful ways of elucidating personhood than relying on conception.
Keeping track of the argument, you had made the claim that my position logically involves infanticide: Quoting Rank Amateur
The only problem most people have with it, is it also allows infanticide. In general - that is a little offsetting
I've shown that it need not. Having said that, it would allow for euthanasia, another advantage for it in my opinion.
As for the personhood of the foetus, why would she be expected to argue the obvious? The foetus is not a person; "the fetus does not possess a great deal in the way of agency".
For some reason I was having to explain what a human being is, and that it is neither a sperm, an egg nor a single cell. I don’t know what you’re getting at with the oak tree analogy.
Reply to AJJ What I'm getting at is that whether the acorn is or isn't an oak tree is irrelevant. Why would it be relevant? I think that both you and others are wrong in this way.
I don’t know. But what I’m saying is that if human life is to be valued, it must be from the moment of its conception. Otherwise people will begin taking opportunities to kill it when it suits them to, as currently happens.
Rank AmateurJanuary 24, 2019 at 23:13#2499290 likes
As for the personhood of the foetus, why would she be expected to argue the obvious? The foetus is not a person; "the fetus does not possess a great deal in the way of agency
is that some type of agreement that no where in that work you linked she ever applied that criteria specifically to determine the moral standing of the fetus? If you scroll back a few pages i pasted all she had to say about it. And made the point none was supported.
You are so all over the map, it is like a Sarah Sanders press conference. I am sure you are a nice man - but we are not going to come to any understanding - we have both exchanged our ideas - not sure there is much point in continuing.
I don’t know. But what I’m saying is that if human life is to be valued, it must be from the moment of its conception. Otherwise people will begin taking opportunities to kill it when it suits them to, as currently happens.
I dont think that follows. Human life can have value that isnt intrinsic. You can value human life for traits that are present in a newborn but not a zygote, or egg or sperm or anywhere on the scale. It just depends on where/when the traits are present.
Reply to AJJ But to talk about human life from the moment of conception falls into the classification trap. Whatever it is classified as, it matters regardless. It matters regardless of whether or not it's classified as human life or a person. Don't you see that by even going into the classification business, you're granting validity for justifications along those lines which draw the line at varying points? How about it's a "thing" for which there's an understandable basis for valuing, given what it has the potential of becoming. If I value oak trees, then I should value acorns, despite the fact that acorns are not oak trees.
Your answer is a bit like saying that it matters from the point that it's an oak tree, but with the suggestion that it has virtually always been an oak tree, and always will be, until it ceases to exist as such. People then argue over at what point it was an oak tree instead of thinking about why it's valuable.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 24, 2019 at 23:27#2499340 likes
Reply to Banno The capabilities approach has the rather obvious disadvantage of ruling out things considered of value on a superficial basis. "Your acorn is not an oak tree! It doesn't even have roots, a trunk, branches, or leaves! So go ahead and throw it in the bin! You need think no further than that!".
Skip ahead years later. I now have deep regrets for not planting that acorn when I had the opportunity to do so, and for not giving it due consideration. I could've had an oak tree by now, but I threw that acorn in the bin, because it was just an acorn.
Come to think of it, this reminds me of the story of the ugly duckling. Banno, do you hunt ugly ducklings? After all, they're not swans. They don't have those beautiful white feathers. Fire away!
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 00:03#2499420 likes
Reply to Andrew4Handel so my 21 year old daughter is suffering from depression. She tells me she wants to take her life. Should I let her. Or assume that her ideal desire if it was not handicapped by her illness would be to live and get her help
A liver is not a human being. Neither, as far as I’m aware, is it made of a single cell. A human being is one of us, from the point at which we begin to develop, which is the moment of conception, right?
But you're dancing around the question. What is a human being? Why is a sperm attached to an egg a person and a fingernail not?
The qualities listed by Nussbaum are sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
A newborn is a person.
Yes, but what about the drunk homeless man, asleep in the gutter? Shall we kill this insentient, unemotional, inaffectionate, physically unhealthy, and irrational hunk of flesh before he awakes and sobers up?
Yeah, you tell him, Hanover! Stop dancing around the irrelevant question, AJJ!
I'll pay attention to you in a moment. I see you've got your hand raised.
As to AJJ, his position is explicitly that certain things are clearly classified as human and others not, so he does have answer the question, even if you believe you have a better solution that avoids his problem.
I think that it's safe to say that we've had more than enough counterexamples to reject this capabilities approach that Banno has put forward. Are we all agreed on that, with the exception of Banno?
Reply to Hanover No. If the capabilities approach said otherwise, i would reject it.
Note the term approach. The list is not a definition of personhood. It's rather a way of thinking about what we ought to do. A the least we ought not stand in the way of a person with a disability seeking emotional fulfilment; nor prevent a child from developing an understanding of their world; nor a drunk from developing whatever capabilities they have.
Nor a foetus from growing; if it were not for the overwhelming capabilities of the woman.
If I value oak trees, then I should value acorns, despite the fact that acorns are not oak trees.
Sure, I'll value them both, but lets say there's a need for a law that prohibits cutting down oak trees. Do you get fined for stepping on an acorn? What's the difference between the two?
Note the term approach. The list is not a definition of personhood. It's rather a way of thinking about what we ought to do.
I'm not sure how you define "approach" here other than a definition that works only sometimes. Quoting Banno
Nor a foetus from growing; if it were not for the overwhelming capabilities of the woman.
I don't understand how this follows. You started out trying to generally define personhood and then threw down a balancing test to use when deciding fetal rights versus women's rights.
Reply to Hanover The law about cutting down oak trees wouldn't apply to stepping on acorns, as they're two different acts about two different things. And regardless of whether or not there's a fine for stepping on acorns, if cutting down oak trees is illegal, then there must be a reason for that. And if the reason was because they're too valuable to be cut down, then that should influence the way that we think about whether to plant or dispose of acorns.
Reply to Banno That would mean I would have to go back and read through that fairly lengthy post. Can't you just tell me how you think what I've said - as opposed to what he has said in that post - compares to the capabilities approach?
Reply to Banno Because...? You weren't paying enough attention to what I've been saying to you? You were, but you aren't sure how my position and your position compare? You just feel like being difficult? :chin:
Reply to Banno I'll try a slightly different approach before giving up on you. If you think that my position is worse and more shallow than yours, then can you explain why you think so without erroneously attributing something I haven't said or expressed agreement with to me?
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 01:20#2499830 likes
Reply to Banno I know I posted the same quote a few pages back, making the point it was completely unsupported. Also making the point that if she was using it as a legal term, which I think she was, fine. In most of the developed world that is the legal reality, but as a moral argument it needs support
Andrew4HandelJanuary 25, 2019 at 01:25#2499870 likes
?Andrew4Handel so my 21 year old daughter is suffering from depression. She tells me she wants to take her life. Should I let her. Or assume that her ideal desire if it was not handicapped by her illness would be to live and get her help
I think when it comes to the unborn child it has no similarities with someone who has already experienced life and formed preferences. Your daughter may have shown that she has a the ability to enjoy life and has interests that might be restored to her.
I suffer from long term depression and anxiety. Everyday you weigh up the goods and bad's of a the situation. It is not a simple dichotomous decision where you know the right course of action or outcome.
I think the problem is that once you are born and have lived some years it is not easy to commit suicide because you have an array of conflicting desires and some instincts for self preservation. This can make the situation worse. So people are like in limbo or purgatory. That is why it can be better to abort a fetus before it is trapped in this quagmire.
There is far more capacity for suffering after you are born than as a fetus.
I would not help someone kill them self but I don't think I can know whether it is the wrong decision for them to make. You might prolong someone's suffer inadvertently by helping them
Andrew4HandelJanuary 25, 2019 at 01:31#2499900 likes
Assuming they do tolerate child neglect and do nothing to alleviate it, or, better yet, assume they actually advocate child abuse and also are opposed to abortion, that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is justified. The best you've shown is that there are some fucked up hypocrites in the world.
I think a lot of objection to abortion is simply virtue signalling. If someone claims to be concerned about children and their outcomes and potential then what have they done for any of the children in need that exist to day.
I think children suffering and starving is a defense for abortion because abortion would prevent unnecessary suffering and neglect and over population etc. And Because arguments against abortion are based on the alleged value of the life being aborted.
I think it would be better for a child not to have existed than to have starved to death or committed suicide after school bullying etc. The abortion debate is silly if we clearly do not have just outcomes for children.
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 01:35#2499910 likes
Reply to Andrew4Handel I am so sorry, that was a hypothetical and I now wish I used another.
Take care of yourself please. I wish I had some great platitude I could share that would help that view, but I don't know if something like that exists. So, just take good care of yourself please
Andrew4HandelJanuary 25, 2019 at 01:54#2499930 likes
A quibble. A one second old embryo has minimal worth, but a 10 year old child infinite worth. At what moment in time does this thing have sufficient worth to cause us to protect it fully? That moment is called personhood.
And the Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery: a rank piece of sophistic re-writing of history.
This misunderstands @Rank Amateur's post. Roe v. Wade is in fact about the state's (meaning the government's) limits and rights to regulate abortion. The civil war, to the extent it was about state's rights, was about the authority of the federal government to dictate it's authority upon the states (meaning the individual states of the Confederacy). I think you're equivocating with the term "state" here.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 04:14#2500260 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I'll accept the CA, but reject your criteria you've offered. I'm fine with accepting the conclusion that we will never define the essential characteristics of a person, but I instead fall back on the idea that I know a conceptus is not a person but that a newborn is. The precise delineating line is unclear, so within the grey area, I give the benefit of doubt to personhood.
I don't shrink from ensoulment either, as I do believe the newborn is sacred, yet the embryo not. Religious talk causes discomfort I know, so substitute ensoulment with simple becoming.
Reply to tim wood The equivocation issue arises here in how you're using "state's rights." As to abortion regulation, the Court was examining the Constitutional limit on government power generally, which in this case happened to deal with a specific state law. Roe v. Wade would apply equally even if the abortion regulation examined were a federal law and not a state law. Their use of the phrase "state's right" was synonymous with government's right.
The Civil War "state's right" issue was a 10th Amendment argument, arguing the federal government was improperly imposing its power on the individual states. The term states' rights here means the actual states, as opposed to the federal government.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 05:37#2500320 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
But you're dancing around the question. What is a human being? Why is a sperm attached to an egg a person and a fingernail not?
You’re being obtuse. You are a human being; you have been one from the moment you began to develop. You did not develop from a sperm cell, you did not develop from an egg cell, you have never been a liver cell, you have never been a fingernail. The combination of the former two was your conception and beginning; the latter two are simply a part of you.
Don’t really know what you’re struggling with. Human life begins from its conception, from what other point can you say it begins? If it is going to be valued, it should be so from then for the reason I gave.
Here’s a short clip of Hitchens on abortion: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Apt4iR6axnY
And I don’t suppose that, which is my whole point.
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 11:17#2500490 likes
Reply to tim wood if the decision in row v wade, was about the legality of abortion, if repealed, it would then make abortion illegal. That is not the case. If repealed, the decision would go to the individual states. Most IMO would allow it, some would not.
The civil war does have many parallels. There was a large disagreement among Americans about what "a person was". One group was using an arbitrary criteria to enslave an entire group of people
Because it improved the quality of their life. Without their slaves their life would be much more difficult.
Most of these people lived in the southern states of the US. They said this slavery thing was a matter of choice, if you don't want a slave, don't get one. There is nothing in the constitution that says I can't have one, it is legal and there is nothing you can do about it. And they where right.
Then the country began to grow, and as new states were the union, there was the question of whether or not they would be slave states or not. Now the states in the south saw a problem coming. If most of these states were free, that view would gain a popular majority, and the federal government might pass some law that slavery was illegal everywhere, They argued that slavery, was not prohibited in the constitution and claimed it was a state right. Seeing this was not going to happen and facing a growing storm driven by the underlying moral truth that slavery was wrong. They left the union.
In the interest of some brevity
Skip to Lincoln declares the slaves free in the emancipation proclamation, But even Lincoln was much less than sure this would survive a constitutional challenge in the court. And in hind sight most legal opinions is, it would not. What was needed to end slavery was an amendment to the constitution. And so there was.
Now if you want a real moral dilemma it is generally believed to be true, that Lincoln extended the war, and the loss of life, in order to get the constitutional amendment and avoid the south entering the union and challenging the emancipation proclamation in court
Andrew4HandelJanuary 25, 2019 at 12:06#2500520 likes
Why do you think that the action of reproduction is an exercise of any right?
If society allows us to do something then it is a right. Anyone can do any action that is possible and ignore societies strictures but if you want to discuss abortion in the framework of societies strictures and morality then society allows people to have children.
My point is that why should people have to defend having an abortion and not have to defend creating a child. As I have said someone can suffer far more after they are born than in the womb, or if they weren't born, so creating a child has a lot of ramifications and the child is not created at her request.
Antinatalists consider creating a child worse than terminating a pregnancy. The anti abortionists do not seem concerned with the ethics of creating a child in the first place and the lack of consent involved and the future suffering of the child preferring to focus on the time in the womb which no one has in memories and where no apparent suffering is involved in that brief existence.
A quibble. A one second old embryo has minimal worth, but a 10 year old child infinite worth. At what moment in time does this thing have sufficient worth to cause us to protect it fully? That moment is called personhood.
No, no, no. That's not actually reflective of reality. There is no objective point at which sufficient worth can be attained. The whole reason why this topic is so controversial is because there is such variation. Different people value this "thing" differently or not at all depending on a number of subjective factors. People have different feelings, different priorities, different ways of thinking. That's the key determinant here, not personhood. [I]Your[/I] rules are not [I]the[/I] rules. There are no rules we must all adhere to, we each set our own.
No, no, no. That's not actually reflective of reality. There is no objective point at which sufficient worth can be attained. The whole reason why this topic is so controversial is because there is such variation. Different people value this "thing" differently or not at all depending on a number of subjective factors. People have different feelings, different priorities, different ways of thinking. That's the key determinant here, not personhood. Your rules are not the rules. There are no rules we must all adhere to, we each set our own.
This strikes me as a global objection to ethical analysis generally and a declaration of ethical subjectivism,
You speak of the massive variations in opinions and subjective viewpoints, but there's actually a well formed consensus on whether the intentional killing of a healthy, bouncing baby boy is unethical. If we can't say whether the killing of an embryo is objectively wrong because all such determinations are necessarily subjective, then it follows we can't say the same for the murder of you and me. If I've misunderstood your position and you actually believe there is an objective basis to declare the murder of you or me unethical, then you'll have to explain why those same objective criteria cannot be used to evaluate what may rightly be done to embryos.
You’re being obtuse. You are a human being; you have been one from the moment you began to develop. You did not develop from a sperm cell, you did not develop from an egg cell, you have never been a liver cell, you have never been a fingernail. The combination of the former two was your conception and beginning; the latter two are simply a part of you.
Why was a I a human being the minute I began to develop? If you keep saying it, does it just become true?
If I have a stack of wood, a saw, and a set of plans, do I have a table?
If I have a stack of wood, a saw, and a set of plans, do I have a table?
No, for the same reason a sperm and an egg when separate don’t give you a human being. If it was the case that putting those things in a pile caused them to form themselves, then yes, you’d have an embryonic table, and eventually a fully developed table.
You speak of the massive variations in opinions and subjective viewpoints, but there's actually a well formed consensus on whether the intentional killing of a healthy, bouncing baby boy is unethical.
I agree. That's not what I meant. I meant that there's a variation [i]within a particular range[/I] to the extent that it makes this a highly controversial topic. This discussion and countless others are a testament to that. These variations have significant consequences in terms of normative ethics.
If we can't say whether the killing of an embryo is objectively wrong because all such determinations are necessarily subjective, then it follows we can't say the same for the murder of you and me.
Correct. An [i]objective[/I] morality is neither epistemologically justified nor necessary. It's just a shock tactic on your part to bring up murder, I suspect. I certainly judge murder to be deeply wrong. My moral overview is not that nothing is wrong and that therefore anything goes, which is the suggestion I suspect you of planting. I just don't believe in [i]objective[/I] morality.
If I've misunderstood your position and you actually believe there is an objective basis to declare the murder of you or me unethical, then you'll have to explain why those same objective criteria cannot be used to evaluate what may rightly be done to embryos.
You've not misunderstood.
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 15:27#2501220 likes
Looking at this - pretty sure it wont be the last thread on abortion - but this will be my last post on it (with one caveat - i will answer direct questions if it would just be rude not to)
Here is where the whole moral argument is right now.
MORALITY
morality itself - is there some level of morality that has a wide application, would be generally accepted as moral or immoral, or is all morality relative.
one must assume there is some generally accepted concept of morality to continue
IF ONE BELIEVES ALL MORALITY IS RELATIVE - STOP HERE
PERSONHOOD
The arguments about personhood are all arguments of if the biology of humans or something else give the fetus moral standing. Although often debated on forums like this - in large measure it has been abandoned in most academic and serious arguments on abortion. The reason for this is that for each criteria given there is a case where such a criteria is only used in the case of the fetus, and not used in the case of a born human. this is just a long series of begging the question.
There is one major exception. Dr. Singer continues to argue that it is not biology that makes us human, it is that we are embodied minds that make us human beings. He argues that this occurs somewhere in early childhood and as such would allow infanticide.
IF ONE BELIEVES NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS THAT A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON BECAUSE A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON - STOP HERE
FUTURE OF VALUE ARGUMENT (FOVA)
Despite the unsupported dismissals of the argument on the board. This argument is regarded almost universally by academics and serious critics both pro choice and pro life as the best argument about the morality of abortion. it is, because it is based on things that almost all believe are intuitively true, or on pure biological fact.
we do intuitively believe it is wrong to unjustly kill people like you and me
we do intuitively believe we will exist in the future and we value it. ( I have dinner reservations for next week - and keep a calendar)
It is a fact that some number of days after the process of conception there does exist a unique human organism
and it is a fact that if you leave it alone - it will exist in the future as only one thing a human like us.
this argument hinges on the concept of "Ideal desire" that it is reasonable to assume that those, who due to some handicap or circumstance are unable to overtly express their desire, would desire things that would be best for them.
The argument against this is that one must have at least some minor level of cognitive ability to be considered as meriting the concept of "ideal desire"
IF YOU BELIEVE THE CONCEPT OF IDEAL DESIRE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FETUS - STOP HERE
RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE MOTHERS BODY
Even if you believe that the fetus is a moral actor, that by itself does not de facto give it a right
to the use of the mothers body. The mother possesses bodily autonomy and she can decide to let the fetus use it, or not.
This argument hinges on the concept of implied consent. Does having sex as an act of free will with a known possible outcome being a fetus with moral standing that has a unique need for the use of your body establish an implied consent
IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO IMPLIED CONSENT - STOP HERE
That is really basically where the world is in the argument
NONE OF WHICH HAS MUCH OF ANYTHING AT ALL WITH IF ABORTION SHOULD OR
SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL.
Reply to Rank Amateur I have a question: when you speak of a moral argument, are you saying you think the average anti-abortion advocate is guided by rationality? I don't think that's true. I think all argumentation on both sides is ad hoc. Morality just doesn't spring forth from rational argument. It's shaped by emotion, norms, and experience.
IOW, the parties on each side aren't most fundamentally motivated by logic. If that was true, we could expect resolution in the form of one side coming to its senses. The divide is in the realm of norms and experience. Do you agree with that?
No objection whatsoever to ethical analysis generally. A declaration of ethical subjectivism? Why not?
It's the "says you" defense. I say abortion is wrong and you say "says you," and I say sure, and because I say it, it is so for me but not for you, and then we just sort of end things there.Quoting S
I meant that there's a variation within a particular range to the extent that it makes this a highly controversial topic.
There are actually variations throughout the whole spectrum of opinions. A small minority find murder of children moral. Infanticide is practiced in some cultures. Are you committed to infanticide being moral for me if I say it is?Quoting S
I certainly judge murder to be deeply wrong. My moral overview is not that nothing is wrong and that therefore anything goes, which is the suggestion I suspect you of planting. I just don't believe in objective morality.
You don't think anything goes for you, but I don't see upon what basis you can force me to adhere to your moral standards unless you think there's something inherently correct about them and that's it not just a matter of personal preference.
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 16:00#2501270 likes
Reply to frank That may or not be true in general, would have no clue how to go about any real way of knowing.
But it makes no difference whatsoever in a philosophical discussion on the permissibly of abortion
Are you suggesting that life might begin before it is conceived? Or after?
“Life begins at conception” is a truism, you numpty. It’s just to say it begins when it is begun, and it begins once an egg cell has been fertilised.
I have not abandoned the argument - i have made the argument - i am abandoning re-statement after restatement after restatement of the argument - after yet one more completely unsupported objection that to date has had nothing at all to do with the propositions or the conclusions. Which is a waste of time.
I don't feel like sharing, by far the most highly regarded, most published and most used pro life argument that many on the site were un-aware of - was a waste of time.
the argument is there - agree - disagree is a personal choice.
It's the "says you" defense. I say abortion is wrong and you say "says you," and I say sure, and because I say it, it is so for me but not for you, and then we just sort of end things there.
We don't have to end things there. We could further discuss our respective views.
There are actually variations throughout the whole spectrum of opinions. A small minority find murder of children moral. Infanticide is practiced in some cultures. Are you committed to infanticide being moral for me if I say it is?
What does it mean to be committed to infanticide being moral for you if you say it is? You can think or say whatever you want, but I don't share the view that infanticide is moral.
You don't think anything goes for you, but I don't see upon what basis you can force me to adhere to your moral standards unless you think there's something inherently correct about them and that's it not just a matter of personal preference.
I can't force you either way. I can only tell you why I judge the matter as I do and try to convince of why you should adhere to my moral standards.
All in all, your response seems to amount to what I think is the mistaken belief that just because I don't accept that morality is objective, then discussion between us can't progress. But I don't think that you've successfully made that case.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 17:08#2501440 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Well no, because as I’ve said previously in this thread, a sperm is not a human being and neither is an egg cell. Once an egg cell is fertilised a human life is conceived, by which I mean something that, if not interrupted, will become a fully developed human being. This is not the case with a sperm or an egg cell; the human embryo is precisely that, an embryonic human being.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 17:17#2501470 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 17:19#2501480 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 17:24#2501510 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
You cannot win a moral argument because there is no evidence of any moral facts.
If there were moral facts and rules nature breaks them all.
I am not interested in the abortion debate per se, but are there not facts in criminal cases and laws broken? It seems that that is analogous to moral laws and facts. Personally, I believe there are at least some moral truths, including that genocide is morally wrong. Act according to that maxim that you could will it to be a universal law. It seems the categorical imperative is a good guiding principle, in my opinion, and it conveys at least some moral truths. However, I differ from Kant in that context needs to be taken into account. For example, always lie to the murderer at the door.
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 17:39#2501540 likes
Reply to tim wood against all the arguments I have made, with propositions and conclusions the counter arguments have been
Banno - a fetus is not a person, because it is not a person because, because of his CA argument which he is not supporting just putting it out there. - the fact that I have not made one argument based on personhood has escaped him for 6 pages. So not one of his objections on this thread has anything at all to do with my argument - which he dismisses as bad, without cause and ignores. Which it seems is a rather normal tactic.
he also occasionally make some reference to "what about the woman, which again i fully addressed - and he has so far ignored.
You on the other hand, have at least 3 times dismissed the FVOL argument on structure. such as this :
Dismissed because unargued and unsupported, merely assumed and asserted. It seems pretty clear that you can rant, but you can't argue - likely do not even understand what argument is. The FOVA depends on assuming what is in question - and that's not argument. The mistake is begging the question. I call it ranting
I have asked on each instance, and do again on the latest version, what specific part of the argument you are talking about in your dismissal, so I could possibly formulate a reply - i have yet to receive one.
Also - as I have pointed out, your first set of objections were addressed specifically in the argument - and as recently as yesterday - i gave you the best argument AGAINST the FVOL argument - whereby you took the 3 items AGAINST it and argued them back as if I was making an argument for. This with other items has lead me to believe you barely read, and if you do, do not even take the briefest of moments to understand the posts i have directed at you. You are writing you argument back in your head before you have reached the second word.
Every point you have raised to me on the issue has amounted to nothing more than an unsupported pronouncement, with a chaser of a personal barb.
Address the premises or the conclusion of the FVOL directly and with support of your counter opinion and I will address -
Address the premises or the conclusion of the use of the woman's body argument and support your counter opinion and I will address
However all future unsupported pronouncements will be regarded as one more opinion and ignored.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 17:44#2501550 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 17:57#2501600 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Personally, I believe there are at least some moral truths, including that genocide is morally wrong.
Where do these moral truths come from and what do they consist of?
They bible is not a good source because it is contradictory along with other problems
If genocide is "wrong" then how come nature freely allows it? I think unfortunately unless we can find some rule book outside of nature then what nature allow nature allows. You can't break the laws of nature.
I would like someone on here to come out and admit to being religious and try and defend the bibles morality and these two quotes that I put in a previous thread.
.................
"But most fortunate of all are those who are not yet born. For they have not seen all the evil that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 6:3
"A man may father a hundred children and live for many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he is unsatisfied with his prosperity and does not even receive a proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he." Ecclesiastes 6:3
I am bringing the bible up in the context of these debates and asking whether or not people that are opposed to abortion have a hidden religious motive beyond their allegedly "rational" arguments.
I said "I would like someone(..)" I didn't say you in particular. I just attached the comment to your post for convenience.
I see no evidence reason leads to morality and you can't derive an ought from an is.
And if reason did lead to a morality it is not clear who's position that morality would favour. At the least however you can point out flaws in peoples argumentation though and common fallacies such as appeal to emotion, shifting the goal post etc.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 25, 2019 at 18:10#2501660 likes
Is a dead person a human? At what stage after death do they stop being human?
Reply to Andrew4Handel Ethics is all about ought. If you can will that everyone ought to lie to the murderer at the door to save an innocent person, then it is a moral truth. If you can will genocide to be a universal law, then committing genocide is not morally wrong. It seems to me that there are at least some moral truths.
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 18:13#2501680 likes
Do you understand that an argument - most arguments, all that I can think of - comprise premises and a conclusion. One argues for and supports the premises, and then exhibits the conclusion as following from the premises as a matter of form, with flourishes as desired.
I see the problem - you were out of philosophy class the day they taught philosophy ( love movie quotes don't you)
One does not argue or support ones premises they are:
"A premise or premiss[a] is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words, a premise is an assumption that something is true"
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "ASSUMPTION"
The person making the argument ( marquis ) in this case declares the premise, which by definition he proposes is true. Than based on these things he believes are true he make a conclusion. This is not begging the question, this is argument.
It is incumbent on those who believe his premises or conclusions are false ( you for instance ) to say they are and why - I have been waiting.
Look. The sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. I prove it thus: premise: the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. I assume that's true. Therefore, the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns.
I dispute your proposition the the sky is full of purple flying unicorns because it is not. - Argument over.
Can't believe that is your issue. Amazed.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 18:14#2501690 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to Andrew4Handel I guess I would argue that you cannot will that all abortion should be outlawed because there are cases where it should be permissible: the health of the mother or even the ability of the parents to care for the child are factors to take into account. So, I guess I believe that abortion is wrong is not a moral truth.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 25, 2019 at 18:20#2501730 likes
I think if there were "ought's" that would be problematic. For example should we give all excess wealth that we have away to save starving children? Should we rescue as many animals as possible from natural harm?
It could be argued like Peter Singer does on an ought's framework we would be compelled to do a lot more than we do currently and sacrifice a lot more. And then the following argument is that, that puts an impossible burden on us.
Also if morality involves choice then we can't simply be compelled to do something it would seem, and retain freewill.
I think one thing you can objectively say about genocide is that it is extremely harmful and causes massive suffering. That really should be an incentive not to do it but yet humans have done it unfortunately.
I am not convinced abortion causes any suffering to the aborted child mainly because we have no memory of being in the womb or suffering the womb or having desires in the womb etc.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 25, 2019 at 18:24#2501740 likes
Mate, you’re just being a pedant. I could be referring either to all cellular life in the human body, or in particular to a new human being there, and there is no reason why it should be the former; remember this thread is about abortion. But look, if that’s the straw you want, then grasp away.
My argument in this thread has simply been this: If we’re going to value the lives of our fellow human beings at all, then we must do so from the beginning. Otherwise people, when it suits them, will come up with arbitrary reasons we’re allowed to end life, as they do.
Ethics is all about ought. If you can will that everyone ought to lie to the murderer at the door to save an innocent person, then it is a moral truth. If you can will genocide to be a universal law, then committing genocide is not morally wrong. It seems to me that there are at least some moral truths.
That's pretty funny. As if merely willing something makes it so. That's a one way ticket to absurdity.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 18:29#2501780 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to S Well, it is not just a matter of willing, but rather logically willing it to be universal law where doing the opposite would result in the breakdown of society.
Alright, why is murdering infants wrong other [than] to you?
I was never the only person who judges it to be wrong, so it was never wrong only for me. There were always others. And you're one of them, surely. So why do I need to convince you?
Andrew4HandelJanuary 25, 2019 at 18:34#2501820 likes
If we’re going to value the lives of our fellow human beings at all, then we must do so from the beginning. Otherwise people, when it suits them, will come up with arbitrary reasons we’re allowed to end life, as they do.
It is quite possible to have an abortion and value human life and not harm anyone else other than the fetus. Life is a lot more nuanced than you seem to think.
Most people are contradictory when it comes to the valuing human life and what this means and having arbitrary concepts and actions. There is profound inequality across society because people do not value all humans equally. This situation was even worse (see slavery and racism and sexism) before abortion became widespread.
There is nothing arbitrary when someone gives a specific reason for having an abortion. And there is nothing arbitrary about labeling the ,multitude of stages in human development differently.
If you worked in a hospital you would not get away with answering every question with "it is a child". to technical question about what entity is being examined or treated.
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 18:36#2501830 likes
Well, it is not just a matter of willing, but rather logically willing it to be universal law where doing the opposite would result in the breakdown of society.
Anyone can make up rules.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 18:50#2501880 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Well look, from my end it feels like I’m explaining the obvious all the time and no one ever gets it. And I don’t know what you’re asking about a contract.
I’m saying a human being’s life starts at its conception, and that it should be valued and not ended simply because it is unwanted. I see that as an undesirable “freedom” to have in a society. I take it as a particularly nasty manifestation of selfism, and a society where people behave less selfishly, it seems to me, is a better one.
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 18:52#2501920 likes
Reply to tim wood by the way that a definition quote - not my opinion
"A premise or premiss[a] is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion.[3] In other words, a premise is an assumption that something is true."
"A premise is a proposition one offers in support of a conclusion. That is, one offers a premise as evidence for the truth of the conclusion, as justification for or a reason to believe the conclusion."
" a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference
specifically : either of the first two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn"
now back to me -
Premises are propositions put forth as true in support of an argument. The person making the argument says these things are true and support the conclusion.
If someone thinks they are false, or do not support the conclusion they say so and why.
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 18:55#2501940 likes
Reply to tim wood so just once, for all that is good in the world, stop arguing against the premises in my argument like 5 pages ago in the abstract, pick one you believe is false and tell me why.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 25, 2019 at 19:09#2501990 likes
I was never the only person who judges it to be wrong, so it was never wrong only for me. There were always others. And you're one of them, surely. So why do I need to convince you?
This is non-responsive.
The question was asked so that you could provide your basis so that I would know what you relied upon to determine that infanticide was murder. Whatever principles you rely upon should be usable to determine the outcome of unclear cases. This, of course, assumes your principles are logical and not simply emotive, but if they are emotive, then I'd have expected you to say that in response to the question I posed, as opposed to simply posing another question of your own.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2019 at 22:45#2502300 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 25, 2019 at 23:52#2502320 likes
Reply to tim wood
Here is the premise that I will break down into part
Any discussion on abortion needs to start with some theoretical account of the wrongness of killing.
I would imagine most on here would have no issue with the assertion it is morally impermissible to, without justification, kill adult human beings like us.
Assume you are ok so far.
But why is it wrong to kill people like us? While we may want to suggest it is the loss others would experience due to our absence. But if that was all it was, it would allow the killing of hermits, or those who lead otherwise independent or friendless lives.
I left out the part about the harm to the killer, this is just to isolate the harm done in killing to the person killed
A better answer would be the primary wrong done by the killing is the harm it does to the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer.
Hope we still ok here
However is it simply the change in a biological state that make killing wrong? That seems insufficient.
Here is the definition you are asking for-
The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.
As to FOV, some time ago I asked what it is and how it is assessed. A problem is that you refer to it as a "future" consideration. I don't know what that is. I think what you have in mind is a present value. That is, at this moment, according to you (near as I can tell) there exists a quantifier that expresses the present value of your future. Let's suppose there is. What does it mean? How do you calculate it? And finally, what difference does it make - who should care? And while you're working this out, remember that your guy Marquis did not do any of this.
I do not see how any of that has to do with the premise above, can you explain the relationship to the premise please
In, the 20th century, easily a billion people had negative FOVs. But what would it mean? Answer: it would mean nothing. Any decision based on an FOV would needs be based on other considerations as well.
Financially? I am not getting the point you are trying to make here either. Not trying to be difficult but am really not understanding your point yet.
The loss of this FOV is that which "ultimately makes killing wrong." Don't you mean that it is the loss of the potential, the possibilities, of the future, that is part of what makes killing wrong?
Yes that is correct, and think that is exactly what the premise says. Do you agree?
t forget that it is not the killing itself that is the problem, but the cause, reason, and circumstances of the killing.
I think I addressed this point, that I believe you are making by saying un justified killing, and asking for some forbearance in not having to argue the nature of justified
And finally, if you're correct and this FOV is the parameter, the measure, you claim it is, then what prevents us from killing those with a bad FOV?
In the argument marquis does allow for euthanasia for people with no future, such as those in permanent vegetative states etc.
As for bad futures, in you counter argument here you say "us from killing ". That would mean someone other than the individual in question is making the judgment about the nature the victims future. I would say the determination of that should be left to that individual. Also, since the overwhelming amount of human beings in the world to not commit suicide, even those living in awful situations, and of the sad number of those that do, almost all would be attributed to some type of serious mental incapacity. It would be a more than fair statement that given the choice between death and their future, for all practical purposes all sane people chose their future.
Implicit in this notion of an FOV is the idea that the victim suffers the loss. How? The victim is dead. Please make clear how the victim suffers the loss of his or her FOV. In death, that which can suffer ceases to be.
That is exactly the point marquis makes. The change in biological state from alive to dead is not enough, What the victim really loses is his future. Not sure how it could be clearer. You are alive, you value your future, as evidenced by you make plans, you look forward to things to come, you are not hanging yourself. I kill you. You have been denied your future. If the point you are making is that at that point you would not know or care, ok. But than you can extend that point to all murder, and say murder is not wrong, because now the victim doesn't know or care anymore
It's empty foolish assertion, empty foolish argument, and empty foolish conclusions. And all unnecessary. I'm of a mind that Marquis knows this now and knew it when he wrote it. The people who buy it either are foolish - "Hey, people have an FOV, no more abortion!" Or knowing its failures and flaws, have notwithstanding adapted it to their own ends to persuade the ignorant and thoughtless.
And there is the barb chaser. Your opinion is noted.
The question was asked so that you could provide your basis so that I would know what you relied upon to determine that infanticide was murder. Whatever principles you rely upon should be usable to determine the outcome of unclear cases. This, of course, assumes your principles are logical and not simply emotive, but if they are emotive, then I'd have expected you to say that in response to the question I posed, as opposed to simply posing another question of your own.
It is sometimes fair to question why a question is being asked or why it is worded in such a way, and that's what I thought in this case upon analysis of your question. I chose to await your reply before responding in the way that you wanted me to. I expected you to have understood that.
The basis is certainly emotive. The basis is emotive in every genuine case. If someone disagrees that the basis is emotive, then I find it more plausible that they just don't realise this than that it's not emotive for them. If the judgement doesn't stem from emotion, then I cannot make sense of it. Infanticide is appalling and detestable.
What unclear cases could there be? Can you give an example? Are principles which are usable to determine the outcome of unclear cases what makes a basis logical in your view? To me, if you need some sort of abstract principle to determine what's wrong about infanticide, then that's a big problem for you, because it should just come to you emotionally straight away with something like infanticide. That's how it is with almost everyone else.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 02:48#2502690 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 03:06#2502730 likes
Absolutely not, in a free society. It's enough she want one. Whether she needs one or not may be someone's business: hers, her family's, the father's, her doctor's, but definitely not yours. Suppose it were yours. What account could you give for any attitude you might have about it, much less any decision about it?
Which do you think is more important:
The right to live (fetus) or the ''freedom'' to have an abortion?
I think abortion devalues human life if it's unleashed in all its forms, meaning permitted under any and all circumstances. Women will not opt for a safer and more ethical alternative like abstinence or contraception.
I'm not saying abortion should be banned but it needs to be monitored and regulated for the benefit of women themselves.
Hm. Yes, men need to make sure women use abortion only when appropriate. :down:
Women will lose a little bit of their humanity if we make abortion completely free. Don't you think? To say abortion is a choice that can be exercised freely is tantamount to saying the fetus is nothing and dispensable.
There are women who want children. They value life and its origins in the fetus. According to you they must be sick in some way.
Women will lose a little bit of their humanity if we make abortion completely free. Don't you think? To say abortion is a choice that can be exercised freely is tantamount to saying the fetus is nothing and dispensable.
Yes, the "absolute freedom" position is an extremist position. It should be rightly rejected.
So here's where we're at: my position is clearly in the lead, because I've only been faced with two challenges, one of which dissipated with Banno's disengagement, and the other one from Hanover, which is ongoing pending his next reply, but, let's face it, doesn't have much of a hope. :strong: :grin:
I'll accept the CA, but reject your criteria you've offered. I'm fine with accepting the conclusion that we will never define the essential characteristics of a person, but I instead fall back on the idea that I know a conceptus is not a person but that a newborn is. The precise delineating line is unclear, so within the grey area, I give the benefit of doubt to personhood.
My position (which appears to be similar in ways to Rank Amateur's, albeit without a needlessly long and complicated argument) avoids the problems with your positions. Why isn't it better?
Instead of a judgement based on a precise delineation, which I agree isn't possible, you two make a judgement based on rough categories. Yet some of the key concerns people have, some of the key moral dilemmas people face, about abortion apply outside of your rough category. That's a problem for you, isn't it? Would you just dismiss a person's concerns because it falls outside of your rough category? It's simply not a moral dilemma? They're not thinking about it rightly? That doesn't seem right, and it doesn't seem very ethical to me. It seems callous and misguided.
It's not a problem for me, because my answer is that their concerns relating to the "thing" should be guided by what is judged to be of value, irrespective of categorisation of the "thing".
It is relevant because it s a realistic often occurring result of creating a child.
Creating more children is just going to create more children in that situation and not alleviate the situation.
If child welfare was so high on the anti-abortionist agenda then why are so many children in dire circumstances? Children can only suffer because they are created.
Your point (suffering children) is relevant to abortion only to the extent that a child born because abortion is illegal will suffer. Is this always the case? I don't think so.
Any discussion on abortion needs to start with some theoretical account of the wrongness of killing.
— Rank Amateur
Why? What is being killed? I think most folks agree that at some point the fetus is essentially a person. I think currently - and in some places for a long time - either viability or quickening is the sign of nascent personhood, viability and quickening being not the same thing. And I think most people agree that aborting then is at least problematic. In any case, these occur after the first trimester. Viability, about 24 weeks. Quickening, 13 to 25 weeks. (That is, quickening as when the mother first feels movement.)
The first trimester is about twelve weeks. Answer: some part of a woman's body is being killed, but not the woman herself. Is a person being killed? Either a person is being killed or a person is not being killed. At the moment the accepted understanding is that a person is not being killed.
The first premise of the argument has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fetus. The reason we need agreement that it is immoral to kill people like you and me first, because there is no logic in arguing the immorality of killing a fetus if you don't think it is immoral to kill a born human
This is just one more in now a long line of you not taking the time to understand, even a very simple point before commenting on it.
But why is it wrong to kill people like us?
— Rank Amateur
Irrelevant. No one is considering killing "people like us."
Again see my point above, again with out any understanding of the argument being made you pick a group of words, out of context and the logic of argument- and go off on a meaningless tangent completely outside the logic of the argument
— Rank Amateur
If you merely said that killing people harms them, I think most folks would let that pass But you want to build an argument on it. So let's look at it. My point here is that you're a victim being killed only while you're alive. When you're dead, you're a dead victim and you are not and cannot be killed any more. Inasmuch as you're dead, whatever your future was, no part of it was actual. Indeed, no part of your or my future is actual, even while we're alive! How can we be deprived of something we neither have nor can have?
If the point is, since there is no more harm that can be done to the dead person, than there is no harm left so the harm of killing ends at the moment of death. That is basically the FOVA. What did the victim lose at that moment? His past? His future memory of it, but his past is still there. Or is your point it is pure biology? Killing is wrong because it kills? The argument is one major harm of killing is the loss of all the things in ones future. I do not understand how your point changes that
And you still have not indicated how it is calculated. From above it appears to be the sum of all the wishful thinking a person might do:
I have no clue still what you want me to calculate, it seems you are trying in some way to conflate the financial idea of future value into the use here and want me to discount back to some NPV. The argument does not do this and has no need to.
It rests on the point that no matter how much you want to parse it, we alive born human beings in a sane state of mind with almost no exception value our future. We make plans, we save money, we dream and hope about what is to come, we look forward to seeing our children grow, to see their children.... do you not value your future?
Are you here arguing that killing is never justified, cannot ever be justified?
You have severe reading comprehension issues. I was assuming we all know there are types of justified killing- I was hoping we would not have to argue them all in this thread
Reply to S A long post I know, but comprehensive I think.
I take your subjective emotive position as primitive and undeveloped and rife with problems because it doesn't offer a reason (as it's emotive) for me to accept your position. If you like murder and ice cream, but I don't, I don't know how you're going to convince me of either. We're just dealing with preference under your theory.
I'm not denying an immediate intuitive reaction people have when faced with moral issues, like feeling repulsed by murder. This is not an entirely rational reaction I'll admit, but it's not entirely emotive. There are good reasons, after all, for believing murder wrong, as in it would destroy society. Matters of conscience are more complicated than just emotive preference for things, like ice cream.
I called your position primitive because I do agree that we start with these intuitive reactions to situations, but we then derive principles for deciphering the morality of hard cases. Utilitarianism and Kantianism are two efforts of providing such principles. I think we all agree that few if any actually keep the categorical imperative in their head at all times and use it to decide right from wrong, but that's not to say it might not describe the process many undertake intuitively.
We also have to admit that some often feel emotional repulsion to things that they morally ought not feel such repulsion for (e.g. homosexuality, mixed race marriages) and we must admit that some feel a lack of emotional repulsion when they morally ought to (e.g. child molesters, serial killers). The idea that we can logically convince the morally misguided to change their emotional preference makes as much sense as logically convincing someone to like ice cream who doesn't. We do, though, change people's minds when it comes to moral questions, which means something more is at play than simply emotional reaction.
In the examples I gave of people having an inappropriate moral compass, all have a certain underlying principle that is being violated. Namely, each shows a lack of respect for autonomy and deprives people of the power of their own decision making. This principle that drives much of moral theory must therefore be applied consistently throughout other moral decisions. So, for example, if I find homosexuality abhorrent, my mind could be changed by pointing out that my moral rejection requires that I ignore the moral principle of affording people the same autonomy I insist upon providing people in all other situations. Assuming I'm reasonable, I then will reconsider and then take a permissive view on homosexuality, perhaps while even maintaining my emotional repulsion to it. It is the logic, not the emotion, then that drives the final decision.
So, back to abortion. If we accept that we must protect individual autonomy at a certain level in order to be moral people, we then must figure out who has the right to this protection. We generally say that people do, and for reason, we must decide who is a person. The fetus is a hard case because it tests our ability to offer a fine tuned definition, but find a definition we must. Throwing our arms up (ala @Banno) to the notion of definitions is too easy. We all know the limitations of definitions and we all know the problems of essentialism, but just because we can't figure out an exact and always accurate definition of a cup doesn't suggest we don't know when we have a cup and when we do. My response then is as it was, which is that we have to offer a definition of "person" that liberally protects things that might not entirely be people, simply because the destruction of something that might be a person is so morally wrong.
We do, though, change people's minds when it comes to moral questions, which means something more is at play than simply emotional reaction.
We change minds by means of logical arguments? I think emotional appeals are our primary means. I'm just at a loss to think of a case where minds were changed via logic. Could you give an example?
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 14:34#2503670 likes
— Rank Amateur
When? Under what circumstances? And the how& etc? If it's the individual, then his FOV gets close to zero and even to negative values the more danger he's in. Or is this all abut unreal, speculative FOVs? What you apparently forget, and that Marquis never apparently even thought about, is that reality governs. FOV is presumably about reality (never mind how). If you're a combat soldier, your real FOV is affected by the combat. In any case, how that soldier's FOV would be calculated is a clear function of the risk he is subject to
Are you saying the soldier does not value his future? No matter how uncertain it may be, if so make the case. But there is a sort of good point here, one can value something more than ones future, but that does not mean they dont value it at all
In the interest of time and space.
Do you think it is true or not true that people value their future, if not true why?
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 14:45#2503690 likes
However, while still the important concept legally, in most current academic treatment now about the ethics and morality if not admit, grant for sake of the argument the personhood to the unborn at a very early stage of development.
The core issue is, is it biology or something else that makes us a moral actor? If biology the the answer is easy. If something else, what. And all criteria expect one fails on begging the question.
Entity A is not a person because it does not have characteristic X
However characteristic X is in entity B and entity B is a person
Then they modify characteristic X so it only applies to entity A
Leaving the logic to entity A is not a person because entity A is not a person
The exception is the embodied mind argument that our personhood has nothing at all to do with biology. We do not exist as persons until we are an embodied mind. Most often agreed to be sometime in early childhood. This argument is logical and persuasive, the only major issue is it allows infanticide, which as to your whole point above people generally reject.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 14:59#2503710 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 15:10#2503730 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 15:21#2503770 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 15:32#2503790 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I take your subjective emotive position as primitive and undeveloped and rife with problems because it doesn't offer a reason (as it's emotive) for me to accept your position. If you like murder and ice cream, but I don't, I don't know how you're going to convince me of either. We're just dealing with preference under your theory.
I think that it [i]can[/I] offer a reason, and that having an emotive basis [i]wouldn't[/I] prevent someone in that position from doing so. I like ice cream because it tastes yummy, and I'm not all that bothered if you don't like the taste of it, because that's ludicrously unimportant in comparison to how we feel about murder. I abhor murder because it feels very wrong to me. If you have a similar enough emotional foundation to me, then we have something to work with. If you weren't understanding why it should feel wrong, then I would appeal to your emotions and your capacity to reason about them. I could bring up various hypothetical scenarios involving murder and urge you to empathise with the victims.
I'm not denying an immediate intuitive reaction people have when faced with moral issues, like feeling repulsed by murder. This is not an entirely rational reaction I'll admit, but it's not entirely emotive. There are good reasons, after all, for believing murder wrong, as in it would destroy society. Matters of conscience are more complicated than just emotive preference for things, like ice cream.
These good reasons you mention are irrelevant or at least secondary when it comes down to the act of moral judgement for the typical moral agent. Your way of judging morality is a more mechanical way. I'm not a robot, and robot-like decision-making or behaviour is unsuited to ethics. Even if it didn't lead to the destruction of society, I would still judge that murder is wrong. That would be a nightmarish society, not a morally acceptable one. The reason that murder is typically judged to be wrong in the first place has nothing to do with wide-scale considerations about society, it's judged to be immoral because it goes against your conscience, and your conscience is guided by emotions, like the feeling of guilt.
I'm not going to disagree that matters of the conscience are more complicated than matters of what foodstuffs you like. My position is that they're two obviously different things anyway, and that your comparison is highly inappropriate and misleading. I don't judge whether murder is right or wrong through my taste buds. It's not really about complexity, it's about severity. I wouldn't judge you to be the scum of the earth if you didn't like the taste of ice cream!
I called your position primitive because I do agree that we start with these intuitive reactions to situations, but we then derive principles for deciphering the morality of hard cases. Utilitarianism and Kantianism are two efforts of providing such principles. I think we all agree that few if any actually keep the categorical imperative in their head at all times and use it to decide right from wrong, but that's not to say it might not describe the process many undertake intuitively.
But I don't need utilitarianism or Kantianism to "decipher" the morality of "hard" cases. Even if I happen to use such a framework here and there on a given ethical topic, it would merely be an expansion of my initial moral judgement. I wouldn't robotically adopt an ethical conclusion from any given formula if it did not sit well with me. I would reject it or at least think that I would need to investigate why there's a mismatch.
We also have to admit that some often feel emotional repulsion to things that they morally ought not feel such repulsion for (e.g. homosexuality, mixed race marriages) and we must admit that some feel a lack of emotional repulsion when they morally ought to (e.g. child molesters, serial killers).
The idea that we can logically convince the moral misguided to change their emotional preference makes as much sense as logically convincing someone to like ice cream who doesn't. We do, though, change people's minds when it comes to moral questions, which means something more is at play than simply emotional reaction.
The exceptions are like those who just don't like the taste of ice cream and never will, because they're incapable. Maybe they lack the capacity to taste. Everyone else is capable of coming around, and that's because they have that emotional foundation and intellectual ability to draw the right type of connections. Not only is it possible to appeal to the capable on such a basis, in some cases it succeeds. Think of young children, for example. They're very emotional, and can be very selfish, but you have to get them to empathise with the feelings of others in order to get them to see why it's wrong to be very selfish.
In the examples I gave of people having an inappropriate moral compass, all have a certain underlying principle that is being violated. Namely, each shows a lack of respect for autonomy and deprives people of the power of their own decision making. This principle that drives much of moral theory must therefore be applied consistently throughout other moral decisions. So, for example, if I find homosexuality abhorrent, my mind could be changed by pointing out that my moral rejection requires that I ignore the moral principle of affording people the same autonomy I insist upon providing people in all other situations. Assuming I'm reasonable, I then will reconsider and then take a permissive view on homosexuality, perhaps while even maintaining my emotional repulsion to it. It is the logic, not the emotion, then that drives the final decision.
To talk of principles is to talk of the surface layer, so it's not a deep analysis. Principles are guided by emotion. Homophobic principles are based on homophobic feeling. To counter that, you could try to get them to empathise with homosexuals. If the exercise in empathy is successful, then they will have overridden their formerly dominant feelings and gained new dominant feelings on the matter which allow them to reach a different judgement. But they'd have to put some effort into being open enough to begin with.
So, back to abortion. If we accept that we must protect individual autonomy at a certain level in order to be moral people, we then must figure out who has the right to this protection. We generally say that people do, and for reason, we must decide who is a person. The fetus is a hard case because it tests our ability to offer a fine tuned definition, but find a definition we must. Throwing our arms up (ala Banno) to the notion of definitions is too easy. We all know the limitations of definitions and we all know the problems of essentialism, but just because we can't figure out an exact and always accurate definition of a cup doesn't suggest we don't know when we have a cup and when we do. My response then is as it was, which is that we have to offer a definition of "person" that liberally protects things that might not entirely be people, simply because the destruction of something that might be a person is so morally wrong.
The way I see it, I'm leading the race, followed by you, with Banno in his old banger trailing [i]way[/I] behind in the distance, eating our dust with his mystical criteria which somehow manage to successfully rule out the counterexamples which have been raised against him. :smirk:
You suffer from similar problems as Banno, but you're driving a better car. Still, mine is of a different class which outperforms you both. :sparkle:
Anyway, getting back on track, any thoughts I might have about protecting individual autonomy ultimately stem from emotion. But note that I've never said anything about my moral judgements being a matter of raw, mindless, unrestrained emotion. I say that people should have the right to certain protections, but, more relevant to my position on abortion, I say that if a "thing" is of value, then a "thing" is of value, and it doesn't and shouldn't matter whether or not this "thing" counts as a person. If a "thing" is of value, then that's a basis to guide our actions in respect of it. I think that going down the route of "fine tuning" a definition is completely the wrong approach; understandable, but the wrong approach nevertheless. If it were a legal matter, then maybe that approach would be better suited, but as a matter of aesthetics or morality, it is not the best way to approach the topic of abortion.
Instead of a judgement based on a precise delineation, which I agree isn't possible, you two make a judgement based on rough categories. Yet some of the key concerns people have, some of the key moral dilemmas people face, about abortion apply outside of your rough category. That's a problem for you, isn't it? Would you just dismiss a person's concerns because it falls outside of your rough category? It's simply not a moral dilemma? They're not thinking about it rightly? That doesn't seem right, and it doesn't seem very ethical to me. It seems callous and misguided.
It's not a problem for me, because my answer is that their concerns relating to the "thing" should be guided by what is judged to be of value, irrespective of categorisation of the "thing".
I don't think that you've overcome this argument. Not by a long shot.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 15:40#2503830 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 15:47#2503850 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to tim woodLoaded language? You claim women should be allowed unrestricted abortion in a ''free'' country. I simply counterbalanced it with human rights, the most basic of which is the right to live.
The problem I see is for women themselves, not for anyone else. Abortion is in a gray moral zone and if I'm correct when unsure we should be cautious for fear that we may do something wrong. In this case the danger is even greater because this is about possible murder.
If abortion is allowed as a simple unqualified choice then how would you distinguish it from whim and fancy? Are women willing to become so free on abortion that they'll ignore the, even if slim, chance that they could be committing murder?
I don't think so. Women are sensible and won't ever commit to unrestricted abortions. If they do despite my objections then it means they don't understand my point.
The way I see it, I'm leading the race, followed by you, with Banno in his old banger trailing way behind in the distance,
Different ethical strokes for different ethical folks?
I see the inverse. :D
As far as I can tell you're saying that the fetus has value. Ok, so what? I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on that. The disagreement was over whether the value of the fetus is equal to the value of a person's autonomy, and I would agree that a person's autonomy has greater value than a fetus.
Many things have value, but we arrange these values into hierarchies or attempt to balance them when they are in conflict. And what both @Banno and @Hanover have done is attempt to provide some way of reasoning through that balance between conflicting values. But I'm not sure where you have done so.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I pretty much thing it is morally permissible to get an abortion at any time prior to birth. My general argument mirror's @Hanover, but my rough criteria make the line of personhood further along in development.
Andrew4HandelJanuary 26, 2019 at 18:46#2504140 likes
Your point (suffering children) is relevant to abortion only to the extent that a child born because abortion is illegal will suffer. Is this always the case? I don't think so.
What doesn't make sense is if someone opposes abortion but does not help suffering children.
If someone thinks abortion is wrong then why would they not think all suffering of children is wrong and take action?
As the saying goes actions speak louder than words. So children are not being brought into a fair world where they can be guaranteed a good outcome and that is not just something created by humans but inherent in nature.
If abortion is illegal people will either try and abort the child themselves, or have backstreet abortion or abandon the child at birth which increases the ,Likelihood of it having a poor quality of life.
The reason I posted that video is to illustrate that there are children suffering appallingly with no opportunities and yet people want more children born that are unwanted that could be aborted painlessly before they have left the womb and experienced life fully.
I am not desperate for people to have abortions but I think it is the route of least suffering.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 19:05#2504250 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
As far as I can tell you're saying that the fetus has value. Ok, so what? I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on that. The disagreement was over whether the value of the fetus is equal to the value of a person's autonomy, and I would agree that a person's autonomy has greater value than a fetus.
Talking about what other people are disagreeing over isn't necessarily relevant to my position and what I've ended up disagreeing with. You'll have to actually go into what I've said, who I've disagreed with, over what, and why.
The one and the other don't have to be of equal value. The fetus just has to be valuable enough to prioritise alternatives to abortion in at least some cases, such as giving birth and keeping the baby, or giving birth and handing over control to social services. I'm all for discouragement of the less advisable route and encouragement of better options. And I never endorsed intervention except in exceptional circumstances, and intervention doesn't necessarily mean strapping the mother down, completely taking away her freedom, and forcing her to give birth. I certainly wouldn't be in favour of that kind of extreme intervention. Intervention can take many forms. I'm talking about [i]some form[/I] of intervention in the case of red flags, like grossly irresponsible behaviour.
I raised the problem from the start about the ambiguity in "control", and there's ambiguity in "freedom", too. We would need to break these concepts down. But no one replied to my original comment and everyone else carried on regardless.
And what both Banno and @Hanover have done is attempt to provide some way of reasoning through that balance between conflicting values. But I'm not sure where you have done so.
I've been arguing that the outcome should be determined based on a valuation which allows for greater subjectivity than basing it on whether the fetus counts as a person, and then arguing over what criteria to go by. That depersonalises the situation, and makes it about rule following. But it's a very personal situation, and should account for feelings, values, desires, and the like.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I pretty much thing it is morally permissible to get an abortion at any time prior to birth. My general argument mirror's Hanover, but my rough criteria make the line of personhood further along in development.
It's not my view that it is morally acceptable to get an abortion for any reason whatsoever, no matter how irresponsible the reason, and the legislation here in the UK doesn't legally permit that.
If in a freedom there is nothing in it that is free, then it is not freedom. What you're writing about is license, and you're positing something that does not exist, absolute license. This confusion leads you to propositions that sound reasonable, but are not. Recast they may be reasonable. Or, if no one is paying attention they may pass as reasonable, but as to meaning, no.
If I translate, it works out to this, there is no abortion except as we, the people in control, allow it. Any freedom there may be in this has nothing to do with abortion itself.
Out of the two of us, it seems to me that you're the one who is confused. You should have just asked me to clarify my meaning if you weren't sure. By "absolute freedom" in that context, I meant the position whereby it's judged to be morally acceptable for someone to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever. "It's her body, she can do what she wants with it". This is indeed what some people believe, even on this very forum, as I recall from a previous discussion. And it is as I described: a form of extremism. It's radical far-left thinking which I reject.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 19:41#2504560 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 19:44#2504570 likes
— Rank Amateur
I imagine that he does, but you have kept referring to FOV as a something. I merely point out that on my best understanding of what that something might be, the value of that something might just depend on the probability of its possibility, and that such a probability decreases in the present of material risk.
The entire concept is, how it is an important way someone is harmed, when their life is prematurely ended is the loss of all that they could or would have done and seen and been if they had not been killed. I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 19:55#2504590 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 20:02#2504620 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Talking about what other people are disagreeing over isn't necessarily relevant to my position and what I've ended up disagreeing with. You'll have to actually go into what I've said, who I've disagreed with, over what, and why.
I was using that mostly as a segue to talk about what I believe your position to be. If you want me to go through your posts and comment individually I will, but it seems like an odd request right off the bat when you could just correct my understanding.
The one and the other don't have to be of equal value. The fetus just has to be valuable enough to prioritise alternatives to abortion in at least some cases, such as giving birth and keeping the baby, or giving birth and handing over control to social services.
Alright, fair enough. Then you consider the fact that the fetus can become a human to have enough value to warrant some sort of moral stop on abortion at some point.
But, why? Is it just a brute value for you?
I'm all for discouragement of the less advisable route and encouragement of better options. And I never endorsed intervention except in exceptional circumstances, and intervention doesn't necessarily mean strapping the mother down, completely taking away her freedom, and forcing her to give birth. I certainly wouldn't be in favour of that kind of extreme intervention. Intervention can take many forms. I'm talking about some form of intervention in the case of red flags, like grossly irresponsible behaviour.
See, to me this seems to be less about the value of the fetus, then, and more about the moral worth of the parent's actions in relation to the fetus. So if someone is irresponsibly pregnant then the fetus has more value than the woman's right to choose, whereas if someone is responsibly pregnant then the fetus has less value than the woman's right to choose, perhaps where the fetus is on a sliding scale of value of some sort depending on development and emotional commitment.
Is that a right or wrong way of interpreting you?
I raised the problem from the start about the ambiguity in "control", and there's ambiguity in "freedom", too. We would need to break these concepts down. But no one replied to my original comment and everyone else carried on regardless.
I guess my value is mostly with respect to a person. The woman is a person, which means they have moral autonomy -- they are the one's who weigh and deliberate in their own personal circumstances about what is right and what is wrong, because no one is better suited to the task than the person who is weighing that decision.
Would the choice effect some other person then the sort of infinite value I assign to person's would require some other means of deliberation -- but I really, honestly do not view the fetus as a person in the least. Value, I grant -- but not anything in relation to the value of a person.
Cool. At least one point of agreement then :D.Quoting S
I've been arguing that the outcome should be determined based on a valuation which allows for greater subjectivity than basing it on whether the fetus counts as a person, and then arguing over what criteria to go by. That depersonalises the situation, and makes it about rule following. But it's a very personal situation, and should account for feelings, values, desires, and the like.
I agree with your conclusion, but not how you get there. I don't think there's an opposition to be had between our emotive and cognitive capacities -- when it comes to judgment they work in tandem, and answering moral questions requires judgment.
Rules are proposed just because they give cognitive content that we can consider. Of course in so considering them we use our emotions, it's just easier to share linguistic expressions -- rules -- than it is to share our base emotions when we are in disagreement (clearly if we are in agreement this isn't as hard!)
It's not my view that it is morally acceptable to get an abortion for any reason whatsoever, no matter how irresponsible the reason, and the legislation here in the UK doesn't legally permit that.
Well, that draws the lines then. :D
Do you acknowledge a difference between morally righteous, morally permissive , and morally repugnant? I don't care about what words are used so much, but I do think there is a middle category between good and evil -- and I tend to think a great deal of our actions fall into that middle category, and abortion is one of those. (EDIT: I should add a fourth category, that of the non-moral, where many actions fall -- but it seemed a bit off course)
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 20:09#2504650 likes
The example above, is about a born human, take out their, and put in you.
I am still on premise one. It is wrong to kill Tim wood( people like us), and an important reason it is wrong is it deprives tim wood of the life you would have had (the future) if you were not killed.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 20:20#2504690 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 20:21#2504700 likes
Here is the problem with personhood, in moral/ethical arguments -
The core issue is, is it biology or something else that makes us a moral actor? If biology, the answer is easy. If something else, what. And all criteria expect one fails on begging the question.
Entity A is not a person because it does not have characteristic X
However characteristic X is in entity B and entity B is a person
Then they modify characteristic X so it only applies to entity A
Leaving the logic: entity A is not a person because entity A is not a person
The exception is the embodied mind argument that our personhood has nothing at all to do with biology. We do not exist as persons until we are an embodied mind. Most often agreed to be sometime in early childhood. This argument is logical and persuasive, the only major issue is it allows infanticide, which as to your whole point above people generally reject.
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 20:26#2504720 likes
Reply to tim wood I have, and we have already had this chat on justified killing, I think at least twice. I have allowed there are such things as justified killing, and asked forbearance in not having to go down the path of exactly what and when and why, in the hope of saving time, with an assumption that our position on it would not be sufficiently different to effect the argument in question
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 20:40#2504740 likes
Reply to tim wood at least where I think we are now is agreement on P1. Summarized
Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral, and an important part of what makes it immoral is it deprives them of their future.
We good on this ?
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 20:44#2504760 likes
P2. From a very early point in a pregnancy there is a unique human organism.
After the process of conception is completed there exists a new zygote cell. This cell has a unique genetic makeup. This zygote is an embryonic stem cell with the ability to generate every organ in the body. For the next 2 weeks or so, or until it is at the 16 cell stage it has the ability to split and twin. After this time, there exists a unique human organism, and this organism can only develop into a human.
Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral...
All this says is that we ought not kill people whom we ought not kill.
Better to say that we ought not kill people because it deprives them of their future.
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 21:52#2504890 likes
Reply to Banno thanks, yea thought I had, but after pages and pages of explanation after explanation, I am sure there are lots of strings of words that can be highlighted and argued against
Here is the last pared down version of P1.
Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral, and an important part of what makes it immoral is it deprives them of their future.
And here is the original full one
P1. One definition of murder is the loss of one’s future of value
Any discussion on abortion needs to start with some theoretical account of the wrongness of killing. I would imagine most on here would have no issue with the assertion it is morally impermissible to, without justification, kill adult human beings like us.
But why is it wrong to kill people like us? While we may want to suggest it is the loss others would experience due to our absence. But if that was all it was, it would allow the killing of hermits, or those who lead otherwise independent or friendless lives.
A better answer would be the primary wrong done by the killing is the harm it does to the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. However is it simply the change in a biological state that make killing wrong? That seems insufficient.
The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 22:02#2504920 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 22:07#2504950 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 22:10#2505000 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 22:14#2505020 likes
Reply to tim wood agree on the human part. On unique meaning it can only make 1 specific and unique individual human. It can't make Tim wood and rank and s. It can only one specific human, with a unique genetic make up.
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 22:15#2505040 likes
Reply to Rank Amateur Yeah, sure. This all looks convolute to my eye. I would just say that killing another person is wrong, end of story. If forced to fill that out I would say something along the lines of intrinsic worth or treating a person as a means, not an end; but these amount to more words that say the same thing.
But I will go along with "depriving a person of their future is wrong". So the point might be moot.
If I might involve myself in this conversation, I would ask for one thing: consistency in the use of words.
Human, human being, and person are three distinct things.
Your blood is human, but not a human being. They are distinct.
A human being is an organism. This is a biological term. A person has moral standing. This is an ethical term.
Would you go along with this?
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 22:27#2505090 likes
Reply to Banno I agree. The only claim in the FVOL argument about the fetus is it is a unique human organism. The overt purpose of the argument is to avoid the morass of personhood
Rank AmateurJanuary 26, 2019 at 22:32#2505130 likes
Sounds like we are kind of ok on P2 - on to P3
P3. All adult humans undergo the same process of development
Currently, there is no other way to become an adult human being, than to start as a human ovam, and a human sperm, to undergo the process of conception and fertilization and the various stages of embryonic development leading to a birth of some type.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 22:56#2505170 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2019 at 22:57#2505180 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
P4. Each human being on the planet can directly trace their past as a biological creature on earth from now back to their unique human organism as defined in P2
Here is the problem with personhood, in moral/ethical arguments -
The core issue is, is it biology or something else that makes us a moral actor? If biology, the answer is easy. If something else, what. And all criteria expect one fails on begging the question.
Entity A is not a person because it does not have characteristic X
However characteristic X is in entity B and entity B is a person
Then they modify characteristic X so it only applies to entity A
Leaving the logic: entity A is not a person because entity A is not a person
The exception is the embodied mind argument that our personhood has nothing at all to do with biology. We do not exist as persons until we are an embodied mind. Most often agreed to be sometime in early childhood. This argument is logical and persuasive, the only major issue is it allows infanticide, which as to your whole point above people generally reject.
Ehhhh... i don't think I agree with your logic here. But let's put that aside, because I think it would be a waste of time since I likely fall into your category of embodied minds.
The thing I tend to think of that really makes a person unique is that they have a body of their own, they have a mind of their own, they have social relationships, and they have a history. It's the history criteria that I think distinguishes between, say, a person in a coma and a fetus. And the fetus' body is contiguous with the mothers prior to birth so as far as I'm concerned drawing the line at birth is laying the line down on the safe side of things.
At least after birth we can say that there is a child with a body of their own, even if they don't have a mind just yet.
But, yeh, I don't think that personhood is strictly biological so I'd probably fall into the embodied mind camp, as you phrase it. It's an ethical category.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 00:14#2505520 likes
Reply to Moliere the thought experiment that goes with it, is I get in car accident and my body is a mess, but my brain is fine, at the same time, do to some illness another person's brain is deteriorating. The doctors take my brain and put it in his body. Is the new person me or him?
Reply to Rank Amateur I'd have to ask you once you wake up. I'd probably believe whichever you said, with the caveat that you might be confused.
The thought experiment doesn't address the primary notion I highlighted which is the history of a person -- people have a history. The ship of Theseus is the ship of Theseus because of its history, not because of the specific boards that make up the ship -- though without any such boards the ship of Theseus would be no more.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 00:40#2505630 likes
P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it as in P1.
One is in possession of one’s biological future whether or not one is aware of it or not. One is possession of ones one’s future of value even if one ( in most cases) does not desire it. As an example there can be a seriously depressed person, who do to the nature of their illness wishes to kill themselves and have no desire for their future. I would argue that it is not morally permissible to allow them to kill themselves because their judgement that their future is without value is handicapped by their illness. The concept of “ideal desire” would apply, and our judgement on the moral permissibly of them killing themselves should be based on what their ideal desire would be if their handicap was not there, and we would assume absent their depression they, like us would desire their future. In the second instance assume there was a person is a catatonic state, but with the real prospect of regaining conciseness, we could not say, that since this person is unaware of their future at that time, they are not in possession of it, the concept of ideal judgement would apply, and we should assume that if they were conscience they would be aware of their future and we should not let the handicap of the catatonic state deny them of their right to it. I argue that the same concept of “ideal desire” applies in the case of the fetus, and their handicap of the state of their development is not philosophically different then the prior 2 examples and we should assume that absent this handicap they would be aware, and desire their future of value as we do.
Oddly enough, we know the herbs once used by Native American women for abortion. Wonder if they sat around having these types of discussions. Probably not.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 00:44#2505680 likes
On your other point, you are just taking a characteristic, and modifying it so it it can't apply where you don't want it to. Which is fine as an opinion as you expressed it. But it is not an argument
Yeah. You used "human organisms". What is that, if not a human being? Why this forth term?
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 01:19#2505900 likes
Reply to Banno I was being, no pun intended, purposely precise, using organism. Avoids all the "what is a human being, and what is not a human being" stuff.
"Awareness" is not necessary for a human organism, but is for a person. Same for "desire".
A philosophical zombie would be a human organism, but have neither awareness nor desire.
And... interesting that you begin here to introduce capacities: the capacity for awareness and the capacity for desire.
SO here is were our differences begin.
Deleted UserJanuary 27, 2019 at 01:49#2506050 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 01:51#2506070 likes
Reply to Banno I never gave, nor am required to give awareness or desire to the organism.
The argument goes, the lack of awareness and/or desire due to the stage of development does not impact its ideal desire. The concept of ideal desire would say, without this handicap of its stage of development, what would it desire. As the examples in the premise.
Deleted UserJanuary 27, 2019 at 01:52#2506080 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 01:52#2506090 likes
The argument goes, the lack of awareness and/or desire due to the stage of development does not impact its ideal desire. The concept of ideal desire would say, without this handicap of its stage of development, what would it desire. As the examples in the premise.
Yeah, nuh. If something is not aware, how can it have a desire? And that would stand regardless of stage of development.
Again, a human being does not per se have moral standing. A person does.
You are trying to get an ought from an is. Now I think that it is possible to do so, but I think you have not shown your case yet.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 02:03#2506150 likes
Reply to tim wood not sure what the difference is. The point is, left alone, it would have a unique future that it would experience. I am not hung on word possess more to concept
Yeah, nuh. If something is not aware, how can it have a desire? And that would stand regardless of stage of development.
The concept of ideal desire goes, as in the premise, You banno, are in an accident, you are completely unconscious, and are in need of life support. I ask you, do you desire life support, but you don't answer. Should I assume you have no desire because you are not aware? The concept of ideal desire would say we should assume you would desire life support if not handicapped by the injury. I am extending the same concept to the organism.
Deleted UserJanuary 27, 2019 at 02:12#2506190 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 02:12#2506200 likes
Reply to Banno one argument at a time please, other wise we just go round and round. We can discuss the right of the organism to the use of the mother's body, but first we have to see if it is such a thing that can have a claim. Think back on the summation you liked a few pages ago. We aren't there yet.
Deleted UserJanuary 27, 2019 at 02:15#2506220 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 02:16#2506240 likes
Reply to tim wood ok, give me another word, for the concept then, that if left alone it would experience a future. Just as when you and I were left alone we experienced our futures.
There are pretty obvious differences between a blastocyst and an unconscious person. I think this has been pointed out by various others. Your metaphor stretches too far.
One does not cease to be a person when one sleeps. We agree to that. But it does not follow that everything that is unconscious is a person. Some persons are unconscious. All you can conclude is that being unconscious does not rule out a foetus being a person.
But lots of other things do.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 02:17#2506260 likes
Banno one argument at a time please, other wise we just go round and round. We can discuss the right of the organism to the use of the mother's body, but first we have to see if it is such a thing that can have a claim. Think back on the summation you liked a few pages ago. We aren't there yet.
Reply to Rank Amateur OK, then - after my comments, and taking this into account, what would P7 look like now?
Deleted UserJanuary 27, 2019 at 02:31#2506450 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 02:33#2506460 likes
Reply to Banno in light of use of mother's body? That is a separate argument than FLO we are having. It is perfectly possible that even if we agree the FLO argument is persuasive, that does not mean that it now has a de facto claim on the use of the mother's body, that would have to argued.
Reply to tim wood Ah, OK, thanks. I'm not going to use stuff as subjective as "inner state"; it's not something that can be shared in a conversation - you know, Wittgenstein and all that private language stuff. Best keep that to one side.
So for now, the point will be moot. This is a place were you and I differ.
P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it as in P1.
Alright. Marking this as a point of disagreement, let's move on.
Deleted UserJanuary 27, 2019 at 02:40#2506510 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 02:47#2506520 likes
Conclusion and exceptions
Conclusion
If P1 and one definition of murder is the loss of ones future of value and if P6 Shortly after the process of conception is complete, and very early in human development there is a unique human organism with a unique human future, and if P7 their awareness or desire for this future is not a condition of their possession of this future, taking of this human future of value is murder, and immoral.
Exceptions
This argument holds for most cases, but not for all. If it can be shown that that there is not a future of value, say thorough embryonic DNA testing that there are sever issues this argument would allow such abortions. Since the argument hinges on there being a unique human organism and there can be a sound biological argument that one does not exist until after twinning this argument would not omit the morning after pill. Finally this argument would not omit infanticide as commonly practiced today with severely premature and physically challenged children facing lives without value as we outlined in P1.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 02:52#2506530 likes
last caveat - this argument makes no attempt at the next level argument that even if the fetus has a right not to be killed because of it life of future value, that does not necessarily give it the right to the use of the woman's body, that is a different argument that is pointless to have until this one is done. when this one is done - i am happy to do that one.
OK, so can you present all seven points, as you see them, with whatever modifications you see fit after our discussion?
I would like to address what you think is your argument, and if I try to summarise it, I'm sure to misrepresent you; and I can't flick back and forward through the argument while keeping each bit in my head.
My aim will be to bring out the exact logical structure of the argument. I think this important because your conclusion seems to only draw on P1 and P7.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 03:04#2506550 likes
Reply to Banno no, take a stab at where you think we are, sometimes it is best to hear back where we think we are. I have done a lot of heavy lifting here. Tell me in your words where you think we are.
If P1 and one definition of murder is the loss of ones future of value and if P6 Shortly after the process of conception is complete, and very early in human development there is a unique human organism with a unique human future, and if P7 their awareness or desire for this future is not a condition of their possession of this future, taking of this human future of value is murder, and immoral.
If it is wrong to deprive a person of their future, and a person can still be a person despite being unconscious, so...
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 03:38#2506660 likes
It is an organism, and at the appropriate time in its life cycle it can reproduce.
Does wrong = immoral?
Why sometimes a future, when do they not have a future?
Deleted UserJanuary 27, 2019 at 03:39#2506670 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 03:44#2506750 likes
Reply to Banno you are trying very hard to add the concept of personhood into the argument, and I have made no claim at all the fetus is a person. The argument does not require it.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 03:44#2506760 likes
This point does nothing to the logic of the argument
Well, it's P1 and P7 that make moral claims. The other points make claims about biology, more or less; and hence are independent of any moral claim.
So why are they there?
What is the structure of the argument?
I'm looking for something that brings the is and the ought together; perhaps something along the lines of "If you want this, you ought do this". I can't see anything like that; so I can't see the logic of the argument.
Reply to Rank Amateur But that can't be right. We owe little, morally, to a mere organism in virtue of their biology. It's other stuff, like the capacity to suffer, self-awareness, ability to prosper, that provide the basis our for choosing one act over another.
That's not to say that the body is without value; but unlike a person, it's value is that it is a means to personhood; whereas a person has value in themselves.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 04:05#2506830 likes
Reply to tim wood your right, you win the argument is awful and is completely destroyed by your awesome summation.
I never for a second believed it would change anyone’s mind. Just thought thoughtful people like to consider arguments counter to their beliefs.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 04:15#2506860 likes
Reply to Banno not the point of the argument. As with Tim, I am not in any delusion that I would change your mind, just think it is always useful to hear the counter argument.
As an aside to you both. The pro choice academics really only attack the argument on the ideal desire point. Saying one does not get the assumption of ideal desire until one can have a desire, or cognative ability in week 25 give or take
There were other objections earlier in life of the argument, that have been addressed and Answered.
What doesn't make sense is if someone opposes abortion but does not help suffering children.
If someone thinks abortion is wrong then why would they not think all suffering of children is wrong and take action?
As the saying goes actions speak louder than words. So children are not being brought into a fair world where they can be guaranteed a good outcome and that is not just something created by humans but inherent in nature.
If abortion is illegal people will either try and abort the child themselves, or have backstreet abortion or abandon the child at birth which increases the ,Likelihood of it having a poor quality of life.
The reason I posted that video is to illustrate that there are children suffering appallingly with no opportunities and yet people want more children born that are unwanted that could be aborted painlessly before they have left the womb and experienced life fully.
I am not desperate for people to have abortions but I think it is the route of least suffering.
I understand. A complete solution should involve the welfare of children but isn't that another issue. The two issues are related, yes, but they can be considered separately, no?
Reply to tim woodWell, if, as you say, women are concerned only about rights to their own bodies then you make sense.
The point is, unfortunately in this case, a woman's body is also a receptacle for life. Call it fetus if you will but it becomes a person who, you'll agree, is guaranteed basic rights.
[I]''I wanted to go to see a movie but I had to take care of my niece.''[/i] I heard someone say. Stories like these are commonplace and illustrate that, sometimes, there are other pressing concerns that take precedence over our own rights. There are no laws that cover such but people, good ones, know instinctively that our own personal rights take second place to moral responsibility.
Women should be free but also cognizant of their own power - the power to create life - and as Spiderman's uncle said ''with great power comes great responsibility''.
Then it wasn't absolute freedom you were speaking of.
I know exactly what I was speaking of. You can of course use whatever term you like to refer to the position I was describing, but I'll stick with the term I used. I do not wish to argue semantics over it with you.
Let's start with, "It's her body, she can do what she wants with it." Actually, him or her, it's not - if we're under law. And I think the moral stance runs alongside law.
The "absolute freedom" moral stance, as I defined it, isn't necessarily law abiding - at least not with regard to UK law.
As I said, some people do take the stance I described, whether you accept it or not. I don't accept it myself. My moral view is in line with UK law in this regard.
You may want to refine this to "No law or moral rule permits an individual complete freedom of the use of his or her body." If this, then I would agree with you.
What I said didn't need "refining". But, at least insofar as it relates to the UK, and abortion, I do agree with that needless rewording of my position.
But then, what do you mean? It can only mean that, so far as abortion is concerned, women are somehow not able to make that decision, but are subject to external rule.
They're subject to the rule of law, yes. But no, that doesn't mean that women are somehow not able to make that decision. It just means that it would be in violation of the law.
With respect to a fetus-as-person, I cannot disagree; the stricture would be binding on all, not just the mother. Before that, however, how does it, in a free society, come to be any of your business?
"Free"? Anyway, as I've said, it is my judgement that certain irresponsible behaviour is immoral, and that intervention of some form would be warranted in some cases.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 12:18#2507550 likes
What you argue that a fetus has, is in terms that do not bestow any moral worth, and in such terms that steer as far away as possible from anything reasonable.
Because, you go on
[quote="tim wood;250681"]. It has a future. Well does it? It has a possible future, and that future is problematic; viz, there's a possible future, and that possibility is subject to probability. So there is no future per se. Further, what is this future? Properly considered it is just nothing at all - a convenient fiction. Disagree? On what grounds? If the future is not-yet, how do you get from here to there or there to here? Perhaps you argue we can think about it. Think about what? The future? Again, that's not available. The trick lies in properly identifying that all we have to work with is the now, in the now. For you to confuse anything of the now with the not-yet of the future is just a mistake fatal to your argument.[/quote
In that entire description of “future “. Is there any part of that only applies to the fetus and not to Tim wood?
If there is, I don’t see it. All it says is the fetus doesn’t have a future like ours, and then a paragraph about your view on the concept about future.
But nothing that differentiate your future from the fetus
You have not even tried to support the lead sentence
Deleted UserJanuary 27, 2019 at 13:56#2507740 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 27, 2019 at 13:58#2507750 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I understand. A complete solution should involve the welfare of children but isn't that another issue. The two issues are related, yes, but they can be considered separately, no?
It depends on how an anti abortion argument is framed. On the future value of life argument that video presents a refutation.
I think the value of a child's life is quite tied up with the environment they will be in. That has been my own experience.
I could argue that I would have been better off being aborted and people do commit suicide everyday which is a rejection of life.
I am not sure what the value of someones life is. But I have a whole thread on quality of life. I am not sure if value of life can be separated from quality of life.
I have mentioned the spirit or soul in another thread and if you believe in a spirit or soul I don't think these can be destroyed and that might be where the value lies. Some people are dualists (I am probably one) What matters is the quality of life and one may have an abortion to prevent the unborn child having a poor quality of life.
Alright, fair enough. Then you consider the fact that the fetus can become a human to have enough value to warrant some sort of moral stop on abortion at some point.
But, why? Is it just a brute value for you?
It's just the way that I feel. I could try to put into words why I feel that way, but I can't explain it beyond it's emotional foundation.
See, to me this seems to be less about the value of the fetus, then, and more about the moral worth of the parent's actions in relation to the fetus. So if someone is irresponsibly pregnant then the fetus has more value than the woman's right to choose, whereas if someone is responsibly pregnant then the fetus has less value than the woman's right to choose, perhaps where the fetus is on a sliding scale of value of some sort depending on development and emotional commitment.
I guess my value is mostly with respect to a person. The woman is a person, which means they have moral autonomy -- they are the one's who weigh and deliberate in their own personal circumstances about what is right and what is wrong, because no one is better suited to the task than the person who is weighing that decision.
That's understandable to some extent. As you know, I haven't posited an equivalence in value. I'm just saying that, the way I judge it, it's [i]valuable enough[/I] to warrant, at the very least, more than a careless disregard, as though it's nothing or just some kind of biological waste matter that we can simply dispose of without a second thought.
Would the choice effect some other person then the sort of infinite value I assign to person's would require some other means of deliberation -- but I really, honestly do not view the fetus as a person in the least. Value, I grant -- but not anything in relation to the value of a person.
And I don't view an acorn as an oak tree. I wish that people would get out of that mindset. But the value of an acorn obviously relates to the value of an oak tree, even if they're not of equal value, and even if there's quite a difference between them. The crazy thing that some of the people in this discussion seem to be neglecting to properly consider is that, all things being equal, a planted acorn grows into an oak tree. Imagine if someone judged oak trees to be of infinite value, yet, being ignorant and failing to see the value in acorns, when given one, they just throw it out of the window into their garden. Then imagine that they move out and don't return until fifty years later. They look out of their window, and to their surprise, there's an infinitely valuable oak tree! "How did that get there?", they wonder. After it had been explained to them, don't you think that they would think that they had misjudged the value of acorns?
I agree with your conclusion, but not how you get there. I don't think there's an opposition to be had between our emotive and cognitive capacities -- when it comes to judgment they work in tandem, and answering moral questions requires judgment.
Evidently they're not always fully compatible, hence my argument for greater subjectivity and less of a reliance on rule following. This rules-based approach allows for the cutting out of subjectivity. "If we follow this rule, then it's not of value, so there's nothing to worry about".
Rules are proposed just because they give cognitive content that we can consider. Of course in so considering them we use our emotions, it's just easier to share linguistic expressions -- rules -- than it is to share our base emotions when we are in disagreement (clearly if we are in agreement this isn't as hard!)
I think you're missing the point. I never argued that there's no emotional basis involved in the rules-based approach. On the contrary, I've said the opposite: there's always an emotional basis. My point was that the rules-based approach cuts out subjectivity where it shouldn't.
I don't care about what words are used so much, but I do think there is a middle category between good and evil -- and I tend to think a great deal of our actions fall into that middle category, and abortion is one of those.
I wouldn't say that it's a grey area. I would judge it on a case-by-case basis, and I would say that some cases are more clearcut than others.
So in murder these are the future-goods which are deprived, according to your rationale for murder being categorized as wrong.
Now I would say a bird has activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- eating, building a nest, whatever the now feels like to a bird, and the pleasures of birds. Dogs too. Animals of all sorts have a future of this sort. And they also have a value.
But I would say that animals are not as valuable as humans. I don't say this with respect to their biology -- as clearly humans are just animals as all the rest -- but because of the ethical category they fall into.
For myself I would just say murder is the immoral and intentional killing of a person -- immoral because sometimes the killing of person's is warranted, even if it is not praiseworthy. It is permissable -- such as cases of self-defense, in cases of war, and in cases of euthanasia (in order from less to more controversial). Whether a person has a future or not, such as the case where a person does not wake up from a coma, is not relevant to my thoughts -- the person has value regardless of their future.
Now for some they do not acknowledge a moral difference between beasts and persons. I don't know where you fall on that spectrum. But for me, I do -- I don't think it is immoral to own a dog, but I do think it is immoral to own a human regardless of how well treated. I don't think it is immoral to kill a deer for food, but I do think it is immoral to kill a person for food no matter how humanely done. These are some of the advantages, if we believe there is a moral difference between person's and beasts at least, of the personhood approach: it acknowledges that there is something almost infinite in the worth of others and that they, as ourselves, are owed consideration if we are to count our moral tokens (be they actions, thoughts, or character) as good.
Another advantage to this approach is that it is common sensical: Generally speaking we think other people are worthwhile. Why? Well, we can invent any rationale we want, but there isn't as much a why as there is a who or a what. Whether it be because the body has a soul, because love is all there is, because they are ends in themselves, or what-have-you the metaphysical basis for our actions doesn't matter as much as making the judgment about who is treated like this.
To me it seems that your own argument sneaks personhood, of this sort, in by referencing the activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- things which, say, a stone or an apple will not have. It just misses some of the important things that makes us specifically persons, rather than just beasts, and then tries to write off personhood accounts by saying the personhood of such-and-such does not matter, its the future of such-and-such that does. For msyelf the history matters ethically because it's the history of persons -- its not just any future, its the future of persons. But maybe there is some way of construing the future in a way that does not reference activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- or maybe there is some way to differentiate this from animals while at the same time not resembling what most of us mean by persons. But I'm not seeing how.
Oddly enough, we know the herbs once used by Native American women for abortion. Wonder if they sat around having these types of discussions. Probably not.
Good point. Let's all shut up about it and live like savages.
Did you know that we also used to give babies heroin as a "soothing syrup", lobotomise people, and try to treat various ailments with toxic mercury? Isn't ignorance great?
That's understandable to some extent. As you know, I haven't posited an equivalence in value. I'm just saying that, the way I judge it, it's valuable enough to warrant, at the very least, more than a careless disregard, as though it's nothing or just some kind of biological waste matter that we can simply dispose of without a second thought.
I think we'd actually agree here in all except for where you say "to some extent". For myself it seems foolish to compare the worth of a person to anything else, hence why I say its infinite -- it's not something that's really quantifiable or qualifiable. It's more like a beginning for ethical thinking. So there is no extent about it.
But, yes, I don't think careless disregard is the quite right attitude either. For instance I don't think it would be morally permissable to impregnate yourself in order to sell a developed fetus for stem-cell research. Legally, by my lights, sure -- since I don't think the law and morality are one -- but I'd put that pretty squarely in the "wrong" category as having no respect for human life.
And I don't view an acorn as an oak tree. I wish that people would get out of that mindset. But the value of an acorn obviously relates to the value of an oak tree, even if they're not of equal value, and even if there's quite a difference between them. The crazy thing that some of the people in this discussion seem to be neglecting to properly consider is that, all things being equal, a planted acorn grows into an oak tree. Imagine if someone judged oak trees to be of infinite value, yet, being ignorant and failing to see the value in acorns, when given one, they just throw it out of the window into their garden. Then imagine that they move out and don't return until fifty years later. They look out of their window, and to their surprise, there's an infinitely valuable oak tree! "How did that get there?", they wonder. After it had been explained to them, don't you think that they would think that they had misjudged the value of acorns?
This rules-based approach allows for the cutting out of subjectivity. "If we follow this rule, then it's not of value, so there's nothing to worry about".
Heh. I don't want to get too sidetracked -- put this aside for another discussion? It seems to me that it's a bit tangential.
I wouldn't say that it's a grey area. I would judge it on a case-by-case basis, and I would say that some cases are more clearcut than others.
Okie dokie. Well, at least you can understand what I'm saying, I think. I judge it to basically fall squarely in the middle insofar as we're talking about prior to birth -- to myself, it's the sort of thing that one has to weigh and judge for themselves more than it is for us to all judge and think about for others -- unlike, say, murder, which is clear cut.
I think we'd actually agree here in all except for where you say "to some extent". For myself it seems foolish to compare the worth of a person to anything else, hence why I say its infinite -- it's not something that's really quantifiable or qualifiable. It's more like a beginning for ethical thinking. So there is no extent about it.
I don't agree. Nothing's infinitely valuable. I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't take it that far. I mean, don't get me wrong, I would save a person over a cat, for instance. [Hide]Unless that person was Sir2u.[/hide]
But, yes, I don't think careless disregard is the quite right attitude either. For instance I don't think it would be morally permissable to impregnate yourself in order to sell a developed fetus for stem-cell research. Legally, by my lights, sure -- since I don't think the law and morality are one -- but I'd put that pretty squarely in the "wrong" category as having no respect for human life.
Yes, a kind of middle ground between extremes seems sensible here.
Heh. I don't want to get too sidetracked -- put this aside for another discussion? It seems to me that it's a bit tangential.
What? It's very relevant for anyone who considers personhood to be the key determining factor with regards to value and morality in relation to abortion. Quite a few people here have made it clear that that's what they consider, yourself included it seems.
Okie dokie. Well, at least you can understand what I'm saying, I think. I judge it to basically fall squarely in the middle insofar as we're talking about prior to birth -- to myself, it's the sort of thing that one has to weigh and judge for themselves more than it is for us to all judge and think about for others -- unlike, say, murder, which is clear cut.
I think that my position is liberal enough, and that if it were any more so it would be excessive.
What? It's very relevant for anyone who considers personhood to be the key determining factor with regards to value and morality in relation to abortion. Quite a few people here have made it clear that that's what they consider, yourself included it seems.
How so?
It seems to me the question of personhood is just when something is considered worthy of such and such a consideration. One could frame this cognitively or non-cognitively, though, so whether our meta-ethical stance is one or the other doesn't seem to bare on the normative question. So if we are non-cognitivists about persons then there would be no real rule, but rather an emotive state, which decides when we treat such and such as a person, whereas if we are cognitivists then we'd set out some criteria to assist in judging this that or the other.
Or if we are somewhere in-between, which I think I'd say I am, then we'd say that our emotions are clearly a determining factor in which rules we follow, but rules are the means by which we discuss moral matters and consider them for revision or change --so you'd have both.
Further, we could frame things in terms of actions instead of in terms of personhood -- so the values we are thinking of are the acts one chooses. But whether we be cognitivists or non-cognitivists on the matter we can make an argument both ways.
Perhaps you know what you were speaking of, but the point here is communication, getting the other person to know what you're speaking of. You get to have your private wold of meanings, but clearly that doesn't do for communication. And if communication is your intention, then it becomes a fair question if indeed you know what you're talking about, if your communication of it isn't near the target.
This is becoming more and more absurd. I used the term "absolute freedom". You weren't sure what I meant. Then, instead of simply asking me what I meant, you jumped ahead with your own interpretation, and questioned whether I knew what I was talking about. I then clarified by saying that I was referring to the position whereby it's considered morally acceptable for a pregnant woman to get an abortion for any reason whatsoever. I think that that's perfectly clear. And now you're lecturing me about the importance of communication.
And if that's in question, then how is it that it's obvious you should or anyone should favor your standard, if in fact your standard is open to question, i.e., is non-standard?
Obviously my standard is obviously open to question, obviously, obviously. Obviously. Obviously, obviously, obviously, obviously...
Reply to Moliere Are you saying that it's not about whether or not "it" is a person, but rather about whether or not we should treat "it" like one? That would be okay, I suppose, although it seems to skew the language in your favour, because then one can question why we should treat a "thing" that isn't a person like a person. In that language, I would say that we should do so to an extent I would judge to be appropriate. But it could simply be said that it should be judged appropriately as a "thing" of value, and that would seem to avoid these big problems relating to personhood.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 19:21#2508540 likes
activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments
— Rank Amateur
So in murder these are the future-goods which are deprived, according to your rationale for murder being categorized as wrong.
Now I would say a bird has activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- eating, building a nest, whatever the now feels like to a bird, and the pleasures of birds. Dogs too. Animals of all sorts have a future of this sort. And they also have a value.
But I would say that animals are not as valuable as humans. I don't say this with respect to their biology -- as clearly humans are just animals as all the rest -- but because of the ethical category they fall into.
Agree, and in the actual argument marquis address it. But the argument is not about any future, it is about a future, like ours.
For myself I would just say murder is the immoral and intentional killing of a person -- immoral because sometimes the killing of person's is warranted, even if it is not praiseworthy. It is permissable -- such as cases of self-defense, in cases of war, and in cases of euthanasia (in order from less to more controversial). Whether a person has a future or not, such as the case where a person does not wake up from a coma, is not relevant to my thoughts -- the person has value regardless of their future.
I have addressed this issue in the argument, and it is about non-justified killing. Hopping not to run off into a side argument, I ask we don't spend time arguing what is or is not justified.
To me it seems that your own argument sneaks personhood, of this sort, in by referencing the activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- things which, say, a stone or an apple will not have. It just misses some of the important things that makes us specifically persons, rather than just beasts, and then tries to write off personhood accounts by saying the personhood of such-and-such does not matter, its the future of such-and-such that does. For msyelf the history matters ethically because it's the history of persons -- its not just any future, its the future of persons. But maybe there is some way of construing the future in a way that does not reference activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- or maybe there is some way to differentiate this from animals while at the same time not resembling what most of us mean by persons. But I'm not seeing how.
The entire purpose of the FOV argument is to avoid the personhood issue.
In short form it is quite simple and intuitively true.
Despite the coffee shop philosophy, we - people like you and me have a future that we value.
A significant harm of killing us is the loss of that future
Now the biology
About 2 weeks after conception there is a unique human organism
You, me and every human on the planet can directly trace our existence in time and space as a biological entity to such a unique organism that could only have been us.
What you moliere are living right now was the future of that one unique organism at one time.
The argument is it is wrong to unjustifiably deny a human future of value, like ours at anytime in our unique development
The argument is based mostly on pure biology, one inference that futures such as ours are valuable, and an application of ideal desire to the fetus
The argument has holes, mostly around the issue of ideal desire. But it had lasted 30 years because to a very high degree the premise is true and the logic is sound.
The thing that I always find ironic in these discussions is how so many folks, who value science so greatly in the theist, atheist discussions abandoned it in a heart beat in the personhood issue.
And the same folks how value reason so greatly in the theist,atheist discussions, are willing all kinds of twists of reason when it comes to the personhood issue, as below
The fetus is not a person because it does not have trait X
But there are all kinds of things we are happy to call persons that don't have trait X
Ok, let me modify trait X so it only applies to a fetus
Which just make the argument a fetus is not a person because the fetus is not a person
As your, it is not sentience, it is the history of sentience that is important, There is only one kind of human without a history of sentience, a fetus at some stage. Take out all the parts in the middle and your point is just a fetus is not a person because it’s a fetus
Reply to S Yes! That's exactly what I'm saying -- personhood is not a metaphysical category (though if we are cognitivists then we should supply some criteria by which to make a judgment), but an ethical one.
Technically I wouldn't say a newlyborn has all the qualities of a person, but in the interest of laying down a line that is on the safe side I say birth is a good point because at least at that point there is a separate body.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 19:30#2508560 likes
Reply to tim wood I make no capacity argument for the fetus at all its claim to future, just like ours is pure biology.
The life Tim wood is living right now was at one time a completely unique fetus that could only ever become one thing with one unique future- the thing that became to be known as Tim wood. That entire amount of time from then to now was at different points its future, then its present, and then its past. And that is just plain fact.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 19:36#2508580 likes
Reply to Moliere one other point, forgive me the laziness of not finding it, but I think you made a point to S that morality wasn’t black and white, it was on some type of a continuum. If so, and we are something less than sure about the morality of an action with irreversible consequences, what would you say is the right way to proceed?
Agree, and in the actual argument marquis address it. But the argument is not about any future, it is about a future, like ours.
Marquis did, but I think his argument is a bit different from yours. At least if we're thinking of the same paper that he's famous for. Maybe he's made modifications that I'm unaware of.
I was wondering how your argument might deal with this.
I have addressed this issue in the argument, and it is about non-justified killing. Hopping not to run off into a side argument, I ask we don't spend time arguing what is or is not justified.
Sure, that's fine. I was mostly supplying this to say that my theory is able to match yours, since you claimed that one of the benefits of the FOV argument is its ability to account for why murder is wrong -- so I was just displaying that personhood can also function like this. We don't need to get into what I agree would be tangential about which is better at representing the ethics of killing.
The entire purpose of the FOV argument is to avoid the personhood issue.
In short form it is quite simple and intuitively true.
Despite the coffee shop philosophy, we - people like you and me have a future that we value.
A significant harm of killing us is the loss of that future
I don't think I quite see how it avoids the personhood issue, though. That's at least my failing in reading you. If it does I'm not understanding how it does so -- when I read you saying "people like you and me have a future that we value" and "A significant harm of killing us is the loss of that future" I cannot help but think -- well, yes, people like you and me do value our future. This is true.
And then wonder how we count "People like you and me" -- and that's where it seems to me personhood is assumed by yourself, or I'm just not understanding what it is about the future that is not personhood that makes it valuable.
Now the biology
About 2 weeks after conception there is a unique human organism
You, me and every human on the planet can directly trace our existence in time and space as a biological entity to such a unique organism that could only have been us.
What you moliere are living right now was the future of that one unique organism at one time.
The argument is it is wrong to unjustifiably deny a human future of value, like ours at anytime in our unique development
The argument is based mostly on pure biology, one inference that futures such as ours are valuable, and an application of ideal desire to the fetus
The argument has holes, mostly around the issue of ideal desire. But it had lasted 30 years because to a very high degree the premise is true and the logic is sound.
I think it's just the best contender in town that at least claims to not rely upon theological premises, so it lasts because there is nothing else. But that's just me :D
The thing that I always find ironic in these discussions is how so many folks, who value science so greatly in the theist, atheist discussions abandoned it in a heart beat in the personhood issue.
And the same folks how value reason so greatly in the theist,atheist discussions, are willing all kinds of twists of reason when it comes to the personhood issue, as below
Hrrmmm? Have we talked about a/theism and science before? I honestly don't remember.
FWIW, I try to be consistent. Obviously I fail at times.
The fetus is not a person because it does not have trait X
But there are all kinds of things we are happy to call persons that don't have trait X
Ok, let me modify trait X so it only applies to a fetus
Which just make the argument a fetus is not a person because the fetus is not a person
As your, it is not sentience, it is the history of sentience that is important, There is only one kind of human without a history of sentience, a fetus at some stage. Take out all the parts in the middle and your point is just a fetus is not a person because it’s a fetus
So for yourself it seems like a shell game ,basically. If you come up with one thing that's wrong, then there's something else to put forward. So it seems like the conclusion is just assumed to be true, and the premises are ad hoc, more or less, and so not really a principle worth considering.
I don't think that personhood has a singular trait. It's a morass of traits. And, for whatever it happens to be worth, it was only after reading up on the philosophy of abortion that I believed as I do now -- I used to be more pro-life.
Not that this is to persuade you, or anything, but I'm just letting you know where I am at. I don't think I'm playing a shell game -- so at least I am not doing so intentionally.
Reply to Rank Amateur I think that some moral considerations are not black and white, and that abortion is the sort of action that falls in that category. The best way to proceed, in such cases, is to allow people to make the decision on their own because the complexity of the situation is too great for a universal prescriptive rule.
Some actions are just straightforwardly wrong, and it would be inappropriate to have that much permissiveness in those cases -- like murder or slavery.
But abortion is not clear cut. I think that mostly stems from the fact that there are multiple things we care about in conflict with one another, plus the (relatively recent) history of equating abortion to murder to intensify those emotions.
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 19:44#2508620 likes
Hrrmmm? Have we talked about a/theism and science before? I honestly don't remember.
FWIW, I try to be consistent. Obviously I fail at times.
Not specific to you, just a side rant. But at is core the issue of personhood is a denial of biology in favor of “something else. Just find it ironic
Rank AmateurJanuary 27, 2019 at 19:49#2508630 likes
think that some moral considerations are not black and white, and that abortion is the sort of action that falls in that category. The best way to proceed, in such cases, is to allow people to make the decision on their own because the complexity of the situation is too great for a universal prescriptive rule.
Who gets to speak for the fetus in that case? And that was the point I am making, are you 100% sure it deserves no moral standing in the discussion?
Yes! That's exactly what I'm saying -- personhood is not a metaphysical category (though if we are cognitivists then we should supply some criteria by which to make a judgment), but an ethical one.
I would say that it's neither. It's a linguistic category. But I agree that it's more appropriate here to focus on whether to [i]treat like a person[/I] than whether to [i]count as a person[/I].
Technically I wouldn't say a newlyborn has all the qualities of a person, but in the interest of laying down a line that is on the safe side I say birth is a good point because at least at that point there is a separate body.
So long as you don't use that as a basis to make the wrong ethical judgements about that which is prior to birth, then that's a secondary matter which we don't need to get into here.
Who gets to speak for the fetus in that case? And that was the point I am making, are you 100% sure it deserves no moral standing in the discussion?
The mother does. In some ideal sense I'd say the father too, but it's too idealistic to the practical realities of birth and who shoulders the costs of birth.
It's not that the fetus has no moral standing -- it's that the mother is the one in the best position to make that judgment, more than any other person, and in terms of universal prescriptions at least, the mother's worth is infinitely greater than what is effectively an organ.
Worthless? Surely not. But by my estimation the mother is clearly a person, and the fetus clearly is not, so there isn't really any basis of comparison.
Reply to Andrew4Handel You're right about child welfare being relevant since if parents know their child would suffer then they'd surely opt for abortion.
Yet, your position seems weak in first world countries where life is relatively comfortable. In third world countries your argument makes sense.
Quite strange to see that according to statistics, birth rates are highest in poor regions than in the rich part of the world.
Does this mean that people are being stupid? The well-off in the rich part of the world who should have children are not and the economically challenged are multiplying like rabbits.
Perhaps it's a question of access to health care - the poor who need safe abortion facilities don't have it.
A pregnant woman wants to have an abortion
— tim wood
Only if we could replace the wants with needs.
— TheMadFool
[U]Absolutely not, in a free society. It's enough she want one.[/u] Whether she needs one or not may be someone's business: hers, her family's, the father's, her doctor's, but definitely not yours. Suppose it were yours. What account could you give for any attitude you might have about it, much less any decision about it?
If abortion is just a wants issue doesn't it mean that it's nothing more than about right of a woman over her body?
Absolutely not, in a free society. It's enough she want one.
In terms of moral justification and in accordance with UK law, it's not enough that she simply wants one. And if that means that we're not a free society as you conceive of one, then so be it.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
Deleted UserJanuary 28, 2019 at 15:55#2510930 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 28, 2019 at 16:00#2510940 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 28, 2019 at 16:03#2510950 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I mean by this that there are no a priori grounds for interfering with her on the basis of her wants. Or, in other words, it's none of your business.
That's a moot point. Abortion is a social issue and not only about women and their rights. This is unfortunate of course but it's a truth that women have to face. I think women ignore this to their own disadvantage. What could have been well regulated and acceptable abortion is now an unsolvable problem.
Deleted UserJanuary 28, 2019 at 17:09#2511100 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 28, 2019 at 17:11#2511110 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 28, 2019 at 17:21#2511140 likes
There is dispute on how good or bad a legal decision it was. But there is really no dispute it is bad philosophy.
excerpts from the majority opinion on the nature of the fetus:
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception.We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]
It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes “viable,” that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of “mediate animation,” that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this “ensoulment” theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [410 U.S. 113, 161] the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a “process” over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the “morning-after” pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. 62
In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. 63 That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [410 U.S. 113, 162] courts have squarely so held. 64 In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents’ interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes “compelling.”
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the “compelling” point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.
Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those “procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother,” sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, “saving” the mother’s life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.
This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67
Deleted UserJanuary 28, 2019 at 18:23#2511290 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
It's never enough for anything, to simply want it.
So you've changed your mind? Or you're just interpreting what I said in a way that I never intended? You said that "wanting" an abortion "is enough" to morally justify getting one. I disagree. My addition of "simply" was just a way of distinguishing your position from my more complex one. In my position, want alone is insufficient grounds for moral justification. Additional factors need to be taken into consideration.
Does UK law require such duplication in most things?
I don't know. I'm just a layman on the topic of UK law.
Rank AmateurJanuary 28, 2019 at 18:58#2511380 likes
Reply to tim wood it is not good philosophy because it makes absolutely no attempt to be good philosophy. Quite the contrary, Judge Blackmun states -
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
The core underlying statement of fact in the decision, that allows the killing of the fetus, is the court does not really know when life begins, and they don't need to resolve it.
As I mentioned earlier - the case was about the privacy clause in the 14th amendment. Roe claimed the woman's right was absolute up to birth, The court, with the wisdom of Solomon - looked to split the difference and came up with:
"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."
And allowed states to establish some guidelines for when and when not - the prior post above about the fetus was to be a rational for establishing some guidance to the states on such a guidelines.
In short - the court ruled the woman's choice to have an abortion was protected by the 14th amendment
it however was not absolute
the court relied on prior legal criteria on if the fetus had standing, saying it did not, while acknowledging all along that it has no real knowledge of when human life begins.
What's your problem? You keep saying things along the lines that want alone is enough for a pregnant woman to justify getting an abortion, and that it's no one else's business, but then you complain that you're being misrepresented when he points out the consequences of your position to you. It's like you're moving the goalposts to prevent him from scoring. If there are no other factors that we should consider besides whether or not someone wants one, or we shouldn't even judge it in the first place, then it [I]is[/I] like getting a haircut. That's a typical way of thinking about someone getting a haircut. You can't have your cake and eat it.
I mean by this that there are no a priori grounds for interfering with her on the basis of her wants. Or, in other words, it's none of your business. As argued in Roe v. Wade, at some point it may become your business, but the grounds for that are not, in my opinion, either radical, controversial, or in question.
If your position is conditional on other things besides the wants of the pregnant woman, then you should stop saying things which make it seem otherwise. You shouldn't be saying that want alone is enough or that it's none of our business if you agree with us that there are cases where that doesn't bear true. Want alone is enough! (Except when x, y, z...). It's none of your business! (Except when it is because of x, y, z...). Why are you excluding the exceptions to the rule, or trying to sweep them under the rug, as though they're not relevant? They're relevant in both a legal and an ethical sense. Want alone isn't enough, both morally (in my judgement) and legally (in the UK) as per the Abortion Act 1967, under the section about the medical termination of a pregnancy, subsection (1) (a) through to (d). It's my business because I make it my business: we're discussing the ethics of it. You're the one who started the discussion. Bit weird to start an ethical discussion and then when people tell you of their ethical judgement, you respond that it's none of their business.
Protecting what, from whom, on what justification?
Sigh. Do you really have to ask? To protect the interests of both the patient and the doctor. The patient could claim that she was pressured or coerced or that the doctor was biased against her. The doctor might have judged it poorly or missed something. It's good to get a second opinion, for someone to look at it through different eyes, and to sign off on it, as an added layer of authorisation, so that it doesn't end up being treated as something more low-level or trivial like picking up a prescription or going for a checkup at the dentist. If you were a doctor or working in the legal department of a hospital, would you really argue against this?
In all of this there is the deep presupposition that this interference is justified and necessary, that it all somehow, seemingly automatically and without question, just is "your" business. And it is not, on those terms. Or, folks who claim it is need to make their purposes and justifications clear, in clear and reasoned terms. To date there is much that is heartfelt - much more that is awful. Of course if it's just all just a matter of "seems to me," but that "just seems to me" is disingenuous. In short, taken as a whole, I hold the pro-life position to have nothing ethical or moral about it; rather it is a vicious and relentless attack on people and sense and reason. And people of good will and good faith who have their own reasons for opposing abortion for any reason of their own have got to realize that their arguments, such as they may be, are lost in pro-life rhetoric.
Lots of words, but you haven't really said anything. It's ironic that you end by talking of getting lost in rhetoric. The above is just uncharitable characterisation, ad hominems, loaded language... "awful", "disingenuous", "viscous", "relentless attack"... Give me a break.
The original context of this is someone's arguing that, yes, some abortion is ok if a woman needs one, as opposed to wanting one. I replied it's enough for her to want one. That is, her wanting is her business, and her acting on the basis of her wants is her business. There can be no justification for requiring her want to be a "need." If you think there is, please make you case.
But want alone clearly isn't enough. And it's clearly not just her business. Isn't that why you objected to the comparison to getting your hair cut? Because there's more to it than that? Do you even know the implications of what you're saying? You need to [i]look deeper into[/I] the wants to reach a sensible moral judgement. You can't just say "If she wants an abortion, then it's okay! Who am I to judge?". Well, you can [i]say[/I] that, but it shows a lack of good judgement. If that's your view, then you can't reject the getting-a-hair-cut type of comparisons. If you're going to bite the bullet, then you'll have to accept the consequences. You can't just move the goalposts back and forth.
Obviously we agree that it's okay if a pregnant woman [i]needs[/I] an abortion, say, for medical reasons, like I said in my very first comment in this discussion, and as per the Abortion Act 1967 which I've referenced. That's beside the point.
If you wanted a driver's license, no one would stop you and say you needed to "need" a license before proceeding.
You'd need to qualify for one, which is the point. There are conditions you're required to meet. In the UK, to apply for your first provisional driving licence you must be at least 15 years and 9 months old and able to read a number plate from 20 metres away. You’ll need to provide an identity document unless you have a valid UK biometric passport; addresses where you’ve lived over the last 3 years; and your National Insurance number if you know it. There may be additional checks by the DVLA. You'll need to pay either £34 or £43 depending on how you apply. There are different rules for when you can drive with a provisional licence depending on your age and the type of vehicle.
And you need to qualify for an abortion too. There are conditions you're required to meet which I've quoted and referenced. These requirements are there for a reason. It's neither morally justified nor within the confines of the law for people to do whatever they want, whether we're talking about driving a car or getting an abortion.
They would say that there are some hurdles to clear and hoops to jump through on your way to getting your license. She wants an abortion. Is that the end of the matter? Of course not.
You sure have a knack for making it sound otherwise in some of what you've been saying.
I think there's a fair argument to be made - but NO ONE has yet made it - that at some point in the pregnancy wanting by itself is maybe not enough...
There you go again! How peculiar. You acknowledge that, beyond the wanting, there are "hurdles to clear" and you say that ("of course") the wanting is not the end of the matter, but then you say that the wanting is enough. Well, clearly it isn't, is it? By your own admission, they would still have to [i]qualify[/I] or "clear the hurdles".
And it's not true that no one has made that case. I've made that case. Wanting by itself isn't enough because it would permit bad eventualities. A bad eventuality would be getting an abortion for a bad reason. And a bad reason would be a reason which doesn't qualify under the Abortion Act 1967.
Something bad about me? I'm expressing a point of view here. I'm not against women or abortion. It's just that I feel women have the power to give life and this shouldn't be ignored for the sake of ''freedom''. What kind of freedom is this anyway? To be free to commit what is possibly muder - that's not worth fighting for is it? I'd rather fight for equal treatment at work, in politics, etc.
I say it's none of your business. You say that's a moot point. Ok, it is your business. How? Why? On what authority? To what end?
To be precise, how, exactly, is it your business?
Isn't abortion a social issue? Social issues are everybody's business, no?
I understand the process of pregnancy is quite tough for a woman. Carrying a baby for 9 months, delivering it, taking care of it, is no easy job. I see it as power - to be the cradle of life. Do women want to give up this power for the sake of something so petty as the right to abortion which is a denial of what is woman's essence?
Deleted UserJanuary 29, 2019 at 05:54#2512540 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
You're seeing this from a woman's point of view and also in the very narrow sense of rights.
Rights are, by definition, formulated in terms of leasts. Every right, including the right of a woman you're so enthusiatically advocating, is minium of freedom.
I, on the other hand, am talking of a woman's true worth. It goes beyond rights - even slaves had rights. A woman's power lies in her womb and what it can do and not what can be done to it.
Also, I have a feeling that women don't think in your terms. They're not fighting the pro-lifers to do anything they want. They simply want abortion to be available to them in case there are no alternatives.
It could also be that they're confused about the whole issue as it's been, unfortunately and erroneously, linked to women's rights or emancipation. This is an incorrect view. Women's rights and abortion are two unrelated issues linked together by the unscrupulous and narrow minded.
This is a natural tendency and can be forgiven but not ignored. It happens to us all. Women want freedom (I second that) but some unscrupulous and, perhaps, foolish people, have attached this to absolute freedom in abortion. I say women can get equal rights and should fight for it but absolute freedom in abortion isn't an indication of that. In fact, it's to submit that they have an unwanted trait that they'd rather not have. What does that show? Nothing other than their tacit confession that they're the weaker sex and disliked by their own ilk.
Right, women in the UK are hazards to themselves (and doctors), and single doctors cannot be trusted. Is that your position? Is that it? Protect them from themselves because they can neither act in their own interest nor protect themselves? Or is it from someone or something else?
:roll:
Right, here in the UK, you never get any pregnant women who are in any way vulnerable or at any risk whatsoever to themselves or by putting doctors at risk, and a single doctor can always be trusted completely, without giving it a second thought, and a single doctor is at no risk whatsoever for anything in anyway if the patient decides to take legal action against the doctor or the hospital. In fact, there is no such thing as health risks or legal risks here in the UK. You only get those in other countries. Would you believe it, we're risk free. We should therefore immediately scrap any kind of safeguarding in relation to these nonexistent risks. What were we thinking?
Is that your position? Is that it? Huh? Speak up. What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? Scrap any safeguards in place because patients and doctors are always in the right state of mind and always make the right judgements and decisions? Is that it? Is that what you think? They're infallible and safeguards are obsolete, are they? Well...?
Deleted UserJanuary 29, 2019 at 14:40#2513180 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 29, 2019 at 15:19#2513270 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 29, 2019 at 16:53#2513500 likes
Interested your guys view on the concept of Implied consent on the right of the fetus to the use of the woman's body.
the logic goes something like this:
People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions.
Pregnancy is predictable consequence of sex, birth control can very effectively reduce, but not eliminate that this consequence.
By freely entering into sex, where pregnancy is a predictable consequence, there is an implied consent that the fetus has a right to the use of the woman's body.
As an example: A woman decides to have a baby, against the wishes of the father. He doesn't want the baby. Baby comes, she sues him for child support - and in general wins. The reason being that the child was a result of his willful act, with a child as a possible consequence.
the requirement for two doctors; is that a standard practice for medical procedures in the UK?
— tim wood
You did not answer this.
I previously answered that I'm a layman regarding UK law, suggesting that I don't know. I am also a layman regarding UK healthcare practices and procedures. I just know a few things specifically relating to abortion. This isn't the first discussion on the topic that I've read or participated in.
I don't question UK law, but I can question the why of it. If it's standard practice, then that's how it is. If it isn't then why just for abortion? The answer you did give is a non-sequitur. In this case an evasion of the point of the question.
That wasn't an attempt to answer your question. That was me giving you a taste of your own medicine.
I might address the rest of your post which I left out before, if I think that it warrants a reply, and if I feel like it. But not right now. (I'm actually at work).
Is it the case that the topic of abortion turns sane, sensible people into fools at best and usually worse, Or does the topic just attract those who are already that way? Now I think you would do us both a favor and just answer succinctly the question of the OP. But can you?
I have answered the question of the opening post, and you can't fault me on succinctness in doing so. The real question is whether you'll accept it, disagree with it [i]properly[/I], or dismiss it out of hand.
An interesting angle. The consent seems manufactured though. You cannot implicitly consent to a result you explicitly try to avoid. Having sex entails a non-zero chance of pregnancy, but awareness of a possibility is not sufficient to establish consent, implied or otherwise. To use an absurd example: Walking down a dark street might entail a non-zero chance of being robbed, but I do not implicitly consent to that outcome just by taking the risk.
Since you referenced child support, the justification here is a little different, I think. It's not that the father implicitly consented to paying child support in the event of a child being born. It's that society defers the financial burden created by the child on the person who is responsible for creating the risk in the first place. Neither consent nor guilt (in a legal sense) are required.
Go back to the OP and its simple question: a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. What if any are grounds for controlling as to whether or when or under what circumstances she may proceed? Two or three or four simple sentences to answer. Do it, if you can.
Thanks for replying. Sorry if what I say is nonsense to you but am I not right to state that women wanting abortions are, in a sense, undermining their own position by meaning ''I don't like my body''.
One must remember that the right to have an abortion is linked to women's rights. Women want to be considered equal to men (wonderful!) but if abortion is part of the effort then they're admitting, unwittingly and sadly, that they hate their own bodies and that they'd prefer NOT to be woman.
So, tell me, is the freedom to have an abortion really a woman's right or is it a repressed desire to be a man? It's really sad to see women wasting time and effort fighting to become men when there's so much more to she-ness than just a right to have an abortion.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine if sexism were in favor of women. Would they fight for abortion as they're doing? No, because equality of rights isn't an issue any more. I even would go as far as to say that women, if the stronger sex, would use their uterus, as life's source, to subdue men even further.
Rank AmateurJanuary 29, 2019 at 17:24#2513570 likes
To use an absurd example: Walking down a dark street might entail a non-zero chance of being robbed, but I do not implicitly consent to that outcome just by taking the risk.
My response would be that the robbery is the action of another. You can't implicitly consent to someone else's action.
, I think. It's not that the father implicitly consented to paying child support in the event of a child being born. It's that society defers the financial burden created by the child on the person who is responsible for creating the risk in the first place.
Not sure I understand the difference i those 2 points, seems to be saying the exact same thing twice, using different words. What am I missing ?
Interested your guys view on the concept of Implied consent on the right of the fetus to the use of the woman's body.
the logic goes something like this:
People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions.
Pregnancy is predictable consequence of sex, birth control can very effectively reduce, but not eliminate that this consequence.
By freely entering into sex, where pregnancy is a predictable consequence, there is an implied consent that the fetus has a right to the use of the woman's body.
As an example: A woman decides to have a baby, against the wishes of the father. He doesn't want the baby. Baby comes, she sues him for child support - and in general wins. The reason being that the child was a result of his willful act, with a child as a possible consequence.
I understand and agree with the reasoning, however I would have to word it differently because I think that implied consent from the foetus is literally nonsense. You could instead make it about the rights of the parents, saying that they'd have lost or diminished their rights.
Rank AmateurJanuary 29, 2019 at 17:39#2513610 likes
Reply to S yea understand - it really only makes sense if you could assume for the sake of argument the fetus is a moral actor. Didn't say that - because thought would generate like 6 pages
My response would be that the robbery is the action of another. You can't implicitly consent to someone else's action.
You are missing the point, this is actually a non-response to the point raised against your position. The point is that doing something that has a non-zero chance of risk isnt consent of those risks. Consent is about a persons approval or willingness. When a doctor does surgery to save someone's life, they are not consenting to that persons death just because that is a risk entailed in the surgery...thats not what consent is.
When a person chooses to drive a car they are not consenting to anyones death if they get in a fatal accident, nor are they consenting that they should die if they happen to ram into a wall. They are accepting risk, not consenting to the results of the risks. You are only framing it that way to support your position, but it doesnt make as much sense as you think it does. You are mis-usung the word consent in this instance.
Rank AmateurJanuary 29, 2019 at 18:14#2513660 likes
Reply to DingoJones - understand - however if there are predictable consensuses of the action we tend to hold people responsible for them.
In the case of the robbery, there are 2 acts of free will, one walking down the street, and the robber's to rob them. If I flip your logic to the robber it goes like this - I am a robber it is what I do, I work this street - there is some probability that some innocent person will walk down it, if they do I rob them. I am not responsible, because they walked down the street.
this is a legal definition of Implied consent:
"The assumption that a person has given permission for an action, which is inferred from his or her actions, rather than expressly or explicitly provided."
So there is some room for argument on granting or not granting that assumption. In the case o, for lack of a better word " accidents", - your robber, car driver etc" I would argue that assuming the risk, if needed it not a permission for the accident. I would not make the same case for sex.
In the example of the surgeon, before the operation you will sign to agree to the possible risks, and relieve the surgeon of most responsibilities - to specifically avoid an area of implied consent, and make it explicit.
You are only framing it that way to support your position, but it doesn't make as much sense as you think it does. You are mis-usung the word consent in this instance.
I am framing it in any position, just raising an issue that is part of the discussion. I think maybe yes, you think maybe no, we chat and see what happens.
My response would be that the robbery is the action of another. You can't implicitly consent to someone else's action.
No, if we are using the legal definitions of the term, at least approximately, then you can implicitly consent to someone elses actions. That's actually the main practical application of the notion of implied consent, for things like life-saving surgery. Given the way you framed your argument, it also seems to me you effectively consider the fetus another person.
In the case of the robbery, there are 2 acts of free will, one walking down the street, and the robber's to rob them. If I flip your logic to the robber it goes like this - I am a robber it is what I do, I work this street - there is some probability that some innocent person will walk down it, if they do I rob them. I am not responsible, because they walked down the street.
I am not entirely sure what you are saying here, but consent and responsibility aren't correlated in the way you seem to imply. The responsibility of the person acting for the consequences of that action are unrelated to whether or not the person that is acted upon has consented. You can be responsible for moral or otherwise permissible actions, the question just doesn't usually come up.
So there is some room for argument on granting or not granting that assumption. In the case o, for lack of a better word " accidents", - your robber, car driver etc" I would argue that assuming the risk, if needed it not a permission for the accident. I would not make the same case for sex.
Could you elaborate on why you would exclude an unwanted pregnancy from the list of "accidents"?
Not sure I understand the difference i those 2 points, seems to be saying the exact same thing twice, using different words. What am I missing ?
What I was trying to say is that there are different levels of justification necessary for the outcomes. In order for someone else to have "access" (to use a very general term) to your body, consent is necessary. In order to be held criminally accountable, you need to be guilty. In order to be asked to shoulder the financial burdens resulting from a risk, it can be sufficient that you are the person most closely associated with the risk, e.g. because you derived some kind of benefit from the action that caused the risk. Provided that there is no other actor who is more responsible.
The details will differ according to the specific laws, but here is another example: If you build a house, and an earthquake then damages the house to such an extend that it is a danger to the neighbors or passersby, you can be obligated to have the house torn down, at your expense. You did not consent to the earthquake and are not responsible for it, yet you still have to shoulder the costs because it's your house.
Rank AmateurJanuary 29, 2019 at 19:35#2513710 likes
No, if we are using the legal definitions of the term, at least approximately, then you can implicitly consent to someone elses actions. That's actually the main practical application of the notion of implied consent, for things like life-saving surgery. Given the way you framed your argument, it also seems to me you effectively consider the fetus another person.
I am not entirely sure what you are saying here, but consent and responsibility aren't correlated in the way you seem to imply. The responsibility of the person acting for the consequences of that action are unrelated to whether or not the person that is acted upon has consented. You can be responsible for moral or otherwise permissible actions, the question just doesn't usually come up.
I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. In your example the robber is the woman and the fetus is innocent walking down the street.
Could you elaborate on why you would exclude an unwanted pregnancy from the list of "accidents"?
because it does not require the deliberate of even accidental activity of a 3rd party. If the woman and man have sex, there is some probability - solely due to their actions alone - that they may become pregnant.
What I was trying to say is that there are different levels of justification necessary for the outcomes. In order for someone else to have "access" (to use a very general term) to your body, consent is necessary. In order to be held criminally accountable, you need to be guilty. In order to be asked to shoulder the financial burdens resulting from a risk, it can be sufficient that you are the person most closely associated with the risk, e.g. because you derived some kind of benefit from the action that caused the risk. Provided that there is no other actor who is more responsible.
The details will differ according to the specific laws, but here is another example: If you build a house, and an earthquake then damages the house to such an extend that it is a danger to the neighbors or passersby, you can be obligated to have the house torn down, at your expense. You did not consent to the earthquake and are not responsible for it, yet you still have to shoulder the costs because it's your house.
so after all that, should the Dad be required to pay child support ??
I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. In your example the robber is the woman and the fetus is innocent walking down the street.
That does not make sense to me. Your initial argument was that the mother implicitly consented to the use of her body by the fetus. That implies that you accept the notion of bodily autonomy, which holds that no other person has a right to use my body, or parts of it, without consent. Since the fetus is using the body of the mother, it is doing something that is not generally permissible, like the robber in my example.
If it were the other way around, any consent of the mother, implied or otherwise, would be irrelevant.
because it does not require the deliberate of even accidental activity of a 3rd party. If the woman and man have sex, there is some probability - solely due to their actions alone - that they may become pregnant.
That still doesn't explain how the consent is implied though. Implied consent still needs to be actually established by the facts. The goal is to approximate a hypothetical state of mind, not to enforce a predetermined result. You need to establish that the person in question, if they had been fully aware of all facts, would have consented. This is not the case for unwanted pregnancies just as it is not the case for car accidents. Whether or not you hit a tree or another car isn't relevant.
That does not make sense to me. Your initial argument was that the mother implicitly consented to the use of her body by the fetus. That implies that you accept the notion of bodily autonomy, which holds that no other person has a right to use my body, or parts of it, without consent. Since the fetus is using the body of the mother, it is doing something that is not generally permissible, like the robber in my example.
actually what I argued was. by her action of free will, she was responsible for the possible outcomes of that action. So to put back in your example. Between the mother and the fetus, the only one who made an act of free will was the mother. The fetus was the innocent. It was just becoming a fetus. Like your innocent person just walking down the block.
And yes, i completely agree with your concept of bodily autonomy - that is the nature of the question - does sex imply consent to the possible outcome. Obvioulsy the world right now says no. And it could be right, but i don't think the question is without merit.
You need to establish that the person in question, if they had been fully aware of all facts, would have consented. This is not the case for unwanted pregnancies just as it is not the case for car accidents.
are you trying to say that the woman was not fully aware that sex can cause pregnancy? That last sentence of yours, at least as i see it now, makes no sense at all.
I am framing it in any position, just raising an issue that is part of the discussion. I think maybe yes, you think maybe no, we chat and see what happens.
Im sorry sir, but you are. The use of “consent” is being misapplied in direct service to you making the argument that taking on risk includes consent. It doesnt. This is the framing that im talking about, the structure (via misapplying the word “consent”) you are using to make your argument. It services your stance in abortion, but the framing is erroneous therefore it does not support your stance the way you think it does.
Why are you quoting this? Are we talking about the law, or the morality? I was under the impression its the latter you are concerned with, but you go on to insert more legal factors about doctors and consent forms...you are missing the point about the doctor example, and just muddying the waters.
Intentional or not, you are obfuscating here.
In the case of the robbery, there are 2 acts of free will, one walking down the street, and the robber's to rob them. If I flip your logic to the robber it goes like this - I am a robber it is what I do, I work this street - there is some probability that some innocent person will walk down it, if they do I rob them. I am not responsible, because they walked down the street.
Im sorry sir but this illustrates profound confusion. Please notice that you didnt mention consent at all in that, not even your previous, incorrect use of the term. Im not trying to be rude, but you havent flipped the logic at all. You have merely sidestepped and then tried to drag me down an alleyway with you. Your use of my example fails, as the robber is not assuming the risk of an innocent person coming down the street. Thats not risk, that is the whole point of the robbers plans of robbing. Its his hope that someone comes by for him to rob. So I think you’ve jumbled things up a bit here, as I mentioned before you are mis-using the term consent here and from that basis you have become confused. You said you understand but I cannot see how that's possible given your response.
And most abortions - really all that fall within guidelines - are not serious as in dangerous procedures. I guess that for the serious stuff you need quad- or quintuple opinions and no end of eyes looking at it. In that kind of environment if I were a doctor or in the legal department I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning or go to bed at night.
They're serious in other respects, so your response misses the mark. And no, your slippery slope fallacy isn't a good argument, either. If a case is judged to have reached a certain level of seriousness, then a second opinion is warranted. My understanding is that, generally, in some cases, it might be at the request of the patient, whereas in others, it might happen behind closed doors between medical professionals. In all cases of abortion, it happens to be a requirement of the law. That's probably because it's judged to be a fairly unique situation, and because it's not just about the patient, but the future of another living human foetus growing inside of her. At 8 weeks, it has a recognisably humanlike form, including a head, eyes, the beginnings of a nose, arms, legs, a beating heart...
What I say is that if she wants one, that's enough justification for her to pursue one.
Except that it isn't in some cases. It's not morally justified in any case where the pregnant woman is consciously aware of pursuing an abortion on an immoral basis. Cases where the continuance of the pregnancy would not involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family. For example, she's simply changed her mind in the kind of way that she changed her mind about those shoes she bought last month.
If it's not pursued on an immoral basis, or if it's pursued on an immoral basis, but the pregnant woman is ignorant, then by all means, she should pursue one. In the case of the latter, that's what medical professionals and abortion laws are there for. She would be engaged and assessed, and an appropriate outcome would be determined. There's a process in place that she'd have to go through, involving checks and balances. It's not like going through a McDonald's drive thru.
As to "a sensible moral judgment," you simply seem incapable of processing any question about that. But I try again: whose moral judgment, and on what authority? And do not misunderstand: the question is for clarity about your claim, not about any claim of mine.
That's a poorly considered question that I've answered multiple times now. Stop mindlessly re-asking it, please. The obvious answer again: mine!
And it's you who adds the "then its ok! Who am I to judge?" I have only argued that her first hurdle is to want; any further requirement at that point is invasive.
That phrasing is exactly the kind of thing that you've been saying, even if I haven't replicated your phrasing word for word. This is just the now infamous Tim Wood pedantry rearing its ugly head once again. You said "It's enough", I said "It's okay". You said "It's none of your business", I rhetorically asked "Who are you to judge?".
You may answer that in the UK Parliament decides, end of discussion, and that would be it so far as law is is concerned, but it would still leave the why. And just blunt authority is an exercise of power, not of moral guidance.
The UK Parliament makes the laws. But I'm the one who's judging the matter. This isn't really a matter of authority. I'm just sharing my judgement and my reasoning and arguing the case. You're doing the same. Your search for a presumed authority is misguided. What do you expect? Do you expect me to pull out some kind of certification in moral authority?
[I]"I hereby present to you my certification of moral authority. As you can see, I have a level 5 moral authority, whereas you're only a level 2, so I'm your superior and you must concede".[/I]
Look, let's not exhaust ourselves on outlier oddities. In the main, a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. She goes to her doctor. "Yep," he says, "you're pregnant." He goes on to advise her as to her being a candidate for the procedure in question. He may refer her for counseling both before and after - or not. I think it best if she is well-informed. He may advise her as to what her local laws have to say about it all. If you call this qualification, then I fault you on usage. On the other hand it seems you would have her and her case be reviewed y some kind of tribunal, to see if she qualified. If that's accurate, the same questions: who? why" what authority?
Now, I would prefer it if you gave some thought to your replies. It seems to me you're just in knee-jerk reaction mode. Why don't you try reasoning it through and skipping all the predigested cant you've been fed and apparently swallowed. The initial question of the OP is still unanswered, and it seems to me you've gone to much trouble to avoid it. Give it a try.
Some kind of tribunal? Jesus Christ. What nonsense. What I'm saying really isn't that complicated and can be explained in just a handful of words. [B]I judge the conditions for determining the morality of getting an abortion to match the conditions for determining the legality of getting an abortion.[/b] If the pregnant woman doesn't qualify for an abortion as per (1)(a), then she shouldn't get one - not merely because it would be against the law, but because it wouldn't be right. You're free to judge it differently, but if so, I would question your judgement.
Rank AmateurJanuary 29, 2019 at 20:22#2513910 likes
Im sorry sir, but you are. The use of “consent” is being misapplied in direct service to you making the argument that taking on risk includes consent. It doesnt. This is the framing that im talking about, the structure (via misapplying the word “consent”) you are using to make your argument. It services your stance in abortion, but the framing is erroneous therefore it does not support your stance the way you think it does.
The name of the concept is "implied consent" I didn't chose it. You can surely make a case the concept doesn't apply. But it has nothing at all do to with my framing. I am just looking at the concept that is both moral and legal, and asking if it applies here.
Why are you quoting this? Are we talking about the law, or the morality? I was under the impression its the latter you are concerned with, but you go on to insert more legal factors about doctors and consent forms...you are missing the point about the doctor example, and just muddying the waters.
Intentional or not, you are obfuscating here.
Im sorry sir but this illustrates profound confusion. Please notice that you didnt mention consent at all in that, not even your previous, incorrect use of the term. Im not trying to be rude, but you havent flipped the logic at all. You have merely sidestepped and then tried to drag me down an alleyway with you. Your use of my example fails, as the robber is not assuming the risk of an innocent person coming down the street. Thats not risk, that is the whole point of the robbers plans of robbing. Its his hope that someone comes by for him to rob. So I think you’ve jumbled things up a bit here, as I mentioned before you are mis-using the term consent here and from that basis you have become confused. You said you understand but I cannot see how that's possible given your response.
No. You are wrong and im explaining why. This is a familiar display of cowardess from you. I had forgotten you were the guy who resorts to disingenuous withdrawal (disingenuous because this isnt agreeing to disagree as you imply but rather “i cannot admit I am wrong”).
I will try not to forget again: Rank Amateur is a pretender of civility (much more rude to dismiss rather than say “fuckoff dummy”) and an intellectual coward. I think it will stick now that Ive written it down, that seems to help my memory.
actually what I argued was. by her action of free will, she was responsible for the possible outcomes of that action. So to put back in your example. Between the mother and the fetus, the only one who made an act of free will was the mother. The fetus was the innocent. It was just becoming a fetus. Like your innocent person just walking down the block.
And yes, i completely agree with your concept of bodily autonomy - that is the nature of the question - does sex imply consent to the possible outcome. Obvioulsy the world right now says no. And it could be right, but i don't think the question is without merit.
You are jumping between two unrelated concepts here. Responsibility is a relation between a subject and an event. Consent is a relation between two subjects. Responsibility establishes whether or not the subject is the author of the event. Consent establishes the permissions the subjects have concerning each other.
An act of free will does not make you responsible for all possible outcomes of that act. But even if we ignore the details and assume that the mother is responsible for the resulting pregnancy, this does not impact her right to bodily autonomy. In order to overcome bodily autonomy, you need consent.
In that sense, your question is not without merit, or your initial question had merit, because it explicitly based it's argument on consent. In your latest posts, however, you seem to have gotten no closer to actually establish consent, implied or otherwise.
Whether or not my example with the robber convinces you, you still need to show how the consent is implied.
are you trying to say that the woman was not fully aware that sex can cause pregnancy? That last sentence of yours, at least as i see it now, makes no sense at all.
No, I am saying awareness of a risk is not the same as consent. Consent is granting a permission, it requires not just awareness but also intent.
Because the parents are the ones most closely associated to the creation of the child. Given that a child has certain material needs in order to develop, who else is supposed to shoulder this burden if not the parents?
Rank AmateurJanuary 29, 2019 at 20:40#2514030 likes
That is the reason I stop. Why continue ? We each made our point, You seemed quite convinced. There was not going to be anything more of value to say. Why continue ?
Rank AmateurJanuary 29, 2019 at 20:42#2514060 likes
Because the parents are the ones most closely associated to the creation of the child. Given that a child has certain material needs in order to develop, who else is supposed to shoulder this burden if not the parents?
and the difference between that and, the taking care of the material needs before birth ? Again, an assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral entity.
and the difference between that and, the taking care of the material needs before birth ? Again, an assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral entity.
Financial interests don't have the same moral weight as the integrity of life and limb.
Rank AmateurJanuary 29, 2019 at 20:50#2514120 likes
Except that it isn't in some cases. It's not morally justified in any case where the pregnant woman is consciously aware of pursuing an abortion on an immoral basis.
What is an immoral basis for pursuing an abortion? If you have already discussed that, I might have overlooked it, the thread is long.
What is an immoral basis for pursuing an abortion? If you have already discussed that, I might have overlooked it, the thread is long.
Indeed, I have already discussed it prior to that post. But funnily enough, I just finished editing that part because I thought it appropriate to expand on it.
Here's that part again with my recently edited addition:
Except that it isn't in some cases. It's not morally justified in any case where the pregnant woman is consciously aware of pursuing an abortion on an immoral basis. Cases where the continuance of the pregnancy would not involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family. For example, she's simply changed her mind in the kind of way that she changed her mind about those shoes she bought last month.
Some of that wording comes from the Abortion Act 1967, which forms part of UK law.
Also, I think that the following - all the way back on page 4 - was a good point:
The same can be said of the pro-choice who accuse the pro-life of dictating what women can do with their bodies. Do we not all admonish pregnant women who smoke, drink alcohol, or eat rare steak?
And in admonishing pregnant women who smoke, drink alcohol, or eat rare steak, are we not precisely considering the future potential of the foetus?
That might seem a little unrelated, but they're both points against what I called the "absolute freedom" ethical stance on abortion, whereby "It's her body, she can do what she wants with it!" and "Her wanting an abortion is enough!" and "It's none of your business!" or "Oh yeah, well by whose authority?". It's an extreme and unsophisticated position.
Deleted UserJanuary 29, 2019 at 21:21#2514260 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I am not going to be able to fully derive a system of moral philosophy right here. If I ever do that, perhaps you can buy it as a book. But I can try to do a very rough sketch:
Morality is the set of rules that allows for the greatest practical self-actualization of interacting subjects (or, more simply, the greatest practical freedom). Life has the highest moral weight because it's the sine qua non of any self actualization. Your body is the part of the outside world most closely associated with your self, so it has significant moral weight. Wealth is comparatively ephemeral. It is a general tool for many forms of self actualization, but it's also the product of social interaction, so it's already entangled with the interests of others and thus has only limited moral weight.
Deleted UserJanuary 29, 2019 at 21:26#2514280 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 29, 2019 at 21:31#2514310 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Where are you getting this moral justification? You presume it, but it is not a given!
If you've read other comments of mine in this discussion and in other ethical discussions that I've participated in, then I think that my position on such matters should be pretty clear. I don't posit an objective standard for moral justification. I'm just expressing my judgement. I've quoted the basis upon which I make my judgement (the Abortion Act 1967), but you might judge it differently. If so, and if I can't convince you otherwise, then we hit a brick wall, where all I can really say is that I don't judge it that way, and that my way seems right and yours wrong. Mine has a foundation in how I value the foetus, which is about how I emotionally connect.
Well I can be thick and dense. If this was clear before I failed to register it and I apologize. This at the least is crystal clear.
But whither now? If it's just your beliefs, then you're entitled and that's an end of it. And it follows that if they're just your beliefs, and you mean to safe-harbour them as such, then the right thing to do is withdraw them from the agon entirely. To hold them as beliefs and use them as premises in an argument handicaps all. You won't weigh the argument aright, and the rest of us will assail error without result. "What?!" you say, "there is no error!" And you would be correct, in beliefs held as beliefs, there is no error. But as argument those same beliefs may even be completely rotten.
I've had a similar argument with Hanover about this, and would recommend that you check out that discussion between us in this thread - especially as I think that it addresses some of what you're saying above. I don't agree with him or you on this. There might come a point where the discussion between you and I cannot progress, but you shouldn't just dismiss my normative position on the basis of my meta-ethical position. I don't think that my meta-ethical position is that much of a problem, and I certainly don't think that the meta-ethics of objective morality is any kind of solution or fares any better.
Rank AmateurJanuary 29, 2019 at 21:56#2514420 likes
Financial interests don't have the same moral weight as the integrity of life and limb.
In general we follow those with support, so the person you are talking to can address it.
And as a reminder, the necessary base assumption for the sake of argument is the fetus is a moral entity. It is a conflict of claims on bodily autonomy in this argument.
If you don't want to participate in that line of logic because you can't grand the concession for sake of the argument, I am 100% fine with that.
So, back to the argument if, as you say you are the parents have an obligation to the child by nature of the act of having sex, why does that obligation not extend pre birth, again, for the sake of this argument the fetus is something with moral standing.
To my way of thinking the only reasonable place to start, at least from this direction. But in this you have the law establishing morality. I'm inclined to think that morality is primordial, with respect to law. And would you accept that it must be? Else it's for you to reconcile laws that are mutually contrary and even contradictory.
Don't get the wrong idea, I definitely wasn't suggesting that the law establishes morality. I agree that morality is primordial. I was just saying that in this particular case, the one and the other are in sync. In other contexts, that's not the case: there's a mismatch.
With the Abortion Act 1967, I judged it to be a good template for determining the morality of getting an abortion. But that's only because of my preexisting moral sentiments. It always stems back to that, as per Hume. "Reason is the slave of the passions".
And as a reminder, the necessary base assumption for the sake of argument is the fetus is a moral entity. It is a conflict of claims on bodily autonomy in this argument.
If you don't want to participate in that line of logic because you can't grand the concession for sake of the argument, I am 100% fine with that.
So, back to the argument if, as you say you are the parents have an obligation to the child by nature of the act of having sex, why does that obligation not extend pre birth, again, for the sake of this argument the fetus is something with moral standing.
Because the obligation is not absolute or all encompassing. There is an obligation to support the child, but that obligation does not extend to your bodily integrity. You have asked why, before, and my answer would be that your body is the only connection to the outside world you, as a consciousness, have, and is therefore central to your freedom. As such, it is strongly protected.
Thank you for elaborating. Would I mischaracterise your position if I summed it up as: A mother has a moral obligation to carry a child to term, unless doing so entails an significant net risk (as compared to termination of the pregnancy)?
I leave the details of what significant risks are out because it's not related to my follow up question. If you don't disagree with my summary, my question is this: Where does this obligation come from? And to whom is the mother obligated?
Thank you for elaborating. Would I mischaracterise your position if I summed it up as: A mother has a moral obligation to carry a child to term, unless doing so entails an significant net risk (as compared to termination of the pregnancy)?
I leave the details of what significant risks are out because it's not related to my follow up question. If you don't disagree with my summary, my question is this: Where does this obligation come from? And to whom is the mother obligated?
What's an obligation? I tend not to find much use for that word. Is it that she should behave in a certain way: a way which I judge to be moral? It comes from me and my emotions and my reasoning, which forms a judgement. If I'm right, which naturally I think I am, then naturally I think that she should act in accordance with what I judge to be right; or she's obligated to act in accordance with what I judge to be right, I suppose you could say.
What's an obligation? I tend not to find much use for that word. Is it that she should behave in a certain way: a way which I judge to be moral? It comes from me and my emotions and my reasoning, which forms a judgement. If I'm right, which naturally I think I am, then naturally I think that she should act in accordance with what I judge to be right. She's obligated to act in accordance with what I judge to be right, I suppose you could say.
An obligation means you should behave a certain way, yes. I use the term to signify that the mother should behave that way regardless of her personal feelings on the matter. I am aware that the judgement comes "from your reasoning", but what is that reasoning? If you reasoned there must be reasons, and I'd like to know what they are.
An obligation means you should behave a certain way, yes. I use the term to signify that the mother should behave that way regardless of her personal feelings on the matter. I am aware that the judgement comes "from your reasoning", but what is that reasoning? If you reasoned there must be reasons, and I'd like to know what they are.
I've already given them, haven't I? :chin:
Rank AmateurJanuary 30, 2019 at 10:55#2515370 likes
Because the obligation is not absolute or all encompassing. There is an obligation to support the child, but that obligation does not extend to your bodily integrity. You have asked why, before, and my answer would be that your body is the only connection to the outside world you, as a consciousness, have, and is therefore central to your freedom. As such, it is strongly protected.
So, in some type of summary, To the question I proposed, although you seem to believe in the concept of an implied consent, you point is it does not apply to pre birth, because it seems your view is bodily integrity is a stronger claim.
Imagine there's a building marked for demolition and all preparations are complete. Just before the teamleader presses the detonator someone comes running and screams ''there [i]may be somebody inside the building!''[/i].
What does a normal person do?
I would stop the demolition and send a search time inside the building to ensure it's empty of occupants.
Isn't abortion just like this situation? We don't know if a person is inside the fetus or not. What is the right thing to do?
So, in some type of summary, To the question I proposed, although you seem to believe in the concept of an implied consent, you point is it does not apply to pre birth, because it seems your view is bodily integrity is a stronger claim.
No, my answer to the question you initially proposed is that implied consent cannot be established in those circumstances. Since you stopped responding to any of the arguments on that point, I had assumed you dropped it.
My answer to your other, unrelated, question of why child support is a moral obligation while carrying a child to term is not is what you quoted.
Imagine there's a building marked for demolition and all preparations are complete. Just before the teamleader presses the detonator someone comes running and screams ''there may be somebody inside the building!''.
What does a normal person do?
I would stop the demolition and send a search time inside the building to ensure it's empty of occupants.
Isn't abortion just like this situation? We don't know if a person is inside the fetus or not. What is the right thing to do?
No, in my view, abortion is not just like that situation. I said earlier that I think of personhood as a linguistic category. By that I mean that we can string together a bunch of words and declare that if these words fit, then "it" is a person. There's much less variation regarding personhood when it comes to categorising a typical adult human than a human foetus. We agree that a typical adult human is a person, and the issue is whether or not this person is inside the building - which we don't know - and what we should do.
But whether or not we know that there's a person "inside" the foetus depends much more on how we're using the word "person" (and whether or not it fits). The issue is not so much that we don't know, but rather [i]how we're using language[/I].
The way I see it, to focus on the language is the [i]wrong approach[/I]. Let's just use "it" or "thing" instead. What really matters is how we value it, what we judge to be the right and wrong actions regarding it, and so on. It can be a dangerous route to go down to base value judgements on ruling out personhood.
I've considered the other positions in this discussion which take a different approach, but none of them seem better than mine.
Not that I can see, or are you saying you gave them earlier in the thread?
Why don't you check out what I've said and get back to me? I'm not sure exactly what it is you're after from me, and I don't really feel like starting from scratch or repeating myself. Perhaps you could be more specific.
Rank AmateurJanuary 30, 2019 at 17:34#2516120 likes
Reply to tim wood how about we go with Tacit Consent ? Is that better ??
Rank AmateurJanuary 30, 2019 at 18:13#2516220 likes
No, my answer to the question you initially proposed is that implied consent cannot be established in those circumstances. Since you stopped responding to any of the arguments on that point, I had assumed you dropped it.
not sure I stopped responding. Again you denied the concept of implied consent - out of hand.
An interesting angle. The consent seems manufactured though. You cannot implicitly consent to a result you explicitly try to avoid. Having sex entails a non-zero chance of pregnancy, but awareness of a possibility is not sufficient to establish consent, implied or otherwise. To use an absurd example: Walking down a dark street might entail a non-zero chance of being robbed, but I do not implicitly consent to that outcome just by taking the risk.
You give no reason at all why, it is manufactured, that attempts to avoid relieve you of responsibility, or why awareness is not sufficient. You just state they are. It is not just you, but this seems rather normal on here. Without any reasons why or supporting those points, they are just your opinions - which is fine. But it just boils down to - your argument is wrong because I don't believe it.
On the final point on the robber I can back explaining you had the backwards, the child in the innocent actor and the mother is the robber.
An act of free will does not make you responsible for all possible outcomes of that act. But even if we ignore the details and assume that the mother is responsible for the resulting pregnancy, this does not impact her right to bodily autonomy. In order to overcome bodily autonomy, you need consent.
In that sense, your question is not without merit, or your initial question had merit, because it explicitly based it's argument on consent. In your latest posts, however, you seem to have gotten no closer to actually establish consent, implied or otherwise.
Yet again, one more declaration that an act of free will does not make you responsible - with no support of the idea, acknowledgement of where it does or where it does not - and why the difference.
then granting for the sake of argument you go to declare - once again -
But even if we ignore the details and assume that the mother is responsible for the resulting pregnancy, this does not impact her right to bodily autonomy. In order to overcome bodily autonomy, you need consent.
So my base argument asks does the sex provide some obligation on the use of the mothers body - this above is just a long way to say NO, because i say so. Once again - just one more declarative sentence - without support. Just opinion
However, when it came to the child support question - you seem quite willing to assign the father responsibility for his action. seemingly based on differentiation between financial support and the use of the woman's body as below
Because the obligation is not absolute or all encompassing. There is an obligation to support the child, but that obligation does not extend to your bodily integrity. You have asked why, before, and my answer would be that your body is the only connection to the outside world you, as a consciousness, have, and is therefore central to your freedom. As such, it is strongly protected
I was attempting here to summarize where we are to continue:
So, in some type of summary, To the question I proposed, although you seem to believe in the concept of an implied consent, you point is it does not apply to pre birth, because it seems your view is bodily integrity is a stronger claim.
No, my answer to the question you initially proposed is that implied consent cannot be established in those circumstances. Since you stopped responding to any of the arguments on that point, I had assumed you dropped it.
My answer to your other, unrelated, question of why child support is a moral obligation while carrying a child to term is not is what you quoted.
Which still is just saying, yet again, that Rank you are wrong because I say so. And for good measure your example is unrelated because i say so.
I am not trying to be a jerk, but it just turns into twitter if we just share unsupported opinions. You can and should attack my position, and I make that easier by giving you the basis of the belief. So we can logically argue the concepts. See if the concepts apply uniformly across other scenarios or not, and if not why.
Rank AmateurJanuary 30, 2019 at 19:10#2516350 likes
Reply to Echarmion just to help a little. David Boonin in his "pro choice" book " In defense of abortion" addresses the issue of Tacit Consent this way.
He grants, that the free act of having sex establishes a responsibility for the existence of the fetus, it does not, however establish a responsibility of the dependence of the fetus on the woman's body. The though experiment is, a doctor saves my life today, 2 years later I develop Parkinson's. I sue the surgeon for support, because if he had not saved my life, I would not have gotten ill.
My problem with this argument is, by granting the parents are responsible for the existence, and since not responsible for the dependence and can deny the use of her body on this rational. We are right back to where we usually get in the abortion discussion. Some action that most people would consider wrong, to a born human, is somehow not wrong in an un-born human.
If you tried to make a case that a mother or father does not need to take care of a 1 month old, because their act of sex does not directly establish the dependence of the baby would seem insane.
So we get back to where we normally end up. The moral rules that apply outside the womb, do not apply inside the womb. Because we are able to convince ourselves, maybe correctly, maybe not, that the fetus is without the moral standing to deserve like protection.
Deleted UserJanuary 30, 2019 at 19:59#2516420 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 30, 2019 at 20:37#2516470 likes
Why - no - ? What is it you want to establish? Do you know what "tacit" means? It seems you want to establish consent. Consent is both a moral and a legal construct. In either case, for there to be consent, there has to be the capacity to consent, and the consent has to be meaningful. Among the things "meaningful" means is that the person consenting, when he consented, had a real choice and could have not consented if he had so wished.
As to the saying, "silence consents," it can, but in itself does not.
Quick aside, and it may just be me - but i find your prose most confusing. But let me give it a try.
"It seems you want to establish consent. "
Not really, what the proposal is, is that by some action of free will consent is already present - such as, by my act of free will of choosing to live in the US I have given tacit consent to abide by the laws. I haven't signed anything. No one said these are your options.
"Consent is both a moral and a legal construct. "
OK
"In either case, for there to be consent, there has to be the capacity to consent, and the consent has to be meaningful. Among the things "meaningful" means is that the person consenting, when he consented, had a real choice and could have not consented if he had so wished. "
I think you want to hold this to a standard of explicit consent, like signing an ok to do an operation
the point I am making is, there is a non explicit consent given, even without knowing one had, as the result of a willful act.
Tacit consent is a silent consent given by your actions.
and again the argument.
We are responsible for the predicable results of our acts of free will
The existence of a depended being is a predicable result of sex
therefore - the act of sex is an act of tacit consent for the care of the fetus.
and again - we hold to this standard in most cases involved with the child - such as paternity suits. It is the same concept, applied differently in 2 different situations. Which is fine, so it is either because the use of the mothers body is a very different thing than the use of the father's body and effort to make money, which it might be. Or because the of the different nature of the born human, versus the unborn human.
But in either case we once again modify a criteria or principal for the fetus.
You give no reason at all why, it is manufactured, that attempts to avoid relieve you of responsibility, or why awareness is not sufficient. You just state they are. It is not just you, but this seems rather normal on here. Without any reasons why or supporting those points, they are just your opinions - which is fine. But it just boils down to - your argument is wrong because I don't believe it.
The reasons are right in the bit you quoted, and I have expanded on them several times. I can try again: Implied consent is not imposed consent. The intent must be actually implied by either the interests of the person whose consent you try to establish, or their actions. Corresponding to that, if the declared intent of a person is to avoid a certain scenario, this rules out implied consent. Consent is an intentional act, it's giving permission. You cannot reduce it to merely being aware of a possibility.
This is again all based on the assumption that you use the common, approximately legal definition of consent. If by implied consent you mean something significantly different, I'd ask you to provide an explanation.
Yet again, one more declaration that an act of free will does not make you responsible - with no support of the idea, acknowledgement of where it does or where it does not - and why the difference.
The reasoning here is that unpredictable or extremely unlikely outcomes of an act of free will are not actually expressions of that will.
So my base argument asks does the sex provide some obligation on the use of the mothers body - this above is just a long way to say NO, because i say so. Once again - just one more declarative sentence - without support. Just opinion
Your argument was explicitly based on the notion of consent. If you want to establish the moral obligation some other way, you need to actually make that argument. I cannot respond to arguments in your head.
However, when it came to the child support question - you seem quite willing to assign the father responsibility for his action. seemingly based on differentiation between financial support and the use of the woman's body as below
It's odd that you arrive at this conclusion given that I have explicitly stated that it's not based on responsibility.
Which still is just saying, yet again, that Rank you are wrong because I say so. And for good measure your example is unrelated because i say so.
I am not trying to be a jerk, but it just turns into twitter if we just share unsupported opinions. You can and should attack my position, and I make that easier by giving you the basis of the belief. So we can logically argue the concepts. See if the concepts apply uniformly across other scenarios or not, and if not why.
The issue I have with your "style", for lack of a better word, is that it seems to me you don't stick to one specific line of argument. You have alternatively used either responsibility or consent as the basis for your argument, but those are different concepts. I don't see how you can switch from one to the other without changing the entire structure of your argument.
He grants, that the free act of having sex establishes a responsibility for the existence of the fetus, it does not, however establish a responsibility of the dependence of the fetus on the woman's body. The though experiment is, a doctor saves my life today, 2 years later I develop Parkinson's. I sue the surgeon for support, because if he had not saved my life, I would not have gotten ill.
This seems close to my position, though I don't think the thought experiment is a great way to illustrate the point.
My problem with this argument is, by granting the parents are responsible for the existence, and since not responsible for the dependence and can deny the use of her body on this rational. We are right back to where we usually get in the abortion discussion. Some action that most people would consider wrong, to a born human, is somehow not wrong in an un-born human.
Is it wrong to deny a born human usage of your body? Let's say you cause a car accident by being negligent, which leads to a severe injury of another person. It seems fairly straightforward that you are responsible for the injuries. Are you morally obligated to donate blood to the injured person? donate a kidney? I don't think the answer is always yes regardless of circumstance.
Rank AmateurJanuary 30, 2019 at 21:39#2516560 likes
I can try again: Implied consent is not imposed consent. The intent must be actually implied by either the interests of the person whose consent you try to establish, or their actions. Corresponding to that, if the declared intent of a person is to avoid a certain scenario, this rules out implied consent.[/quote
"The intent must be actually implied by either the interests of the person whose consent you try to establish, or their actions." - Ok, the argument is, that the actions of the mother, in this case, having sex where pregnancy is a possible result is " or their actions" What this point does not address is
there is no implied consent by the mother, because ...........
][quote="Echarmion;251649"]Consent is an intentional act, it's giving permission. You cannot reduce it to merely being aware of a possibility.
That is true of explicit consent, But implied consent, as you have already agreed here Quoting Echarmion
Implied consent is a valid concept.
to as a valid concept is by definition not an intentional giving of permission.
This is again all based on the assumption that you use the common, approximately legal definition of consent. If by implied consent you mean something significantly different, I'd ask you to provide an explanation.
, you accept the concept and 2 lines later you ask me to define it.
but in any case - this should work
Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation
The reasoning here is that unpredictable or extremely unlikely outcomes of an act of free will are not actually expressions of that will.
because ...... yet again you need to support the reasons behind statements like that. Give an example of where it would apply. As it stands it is just an opinion -
Your argument was explicitly based on the notion of consent. If you want to establish the moral obligation some other way, you need to actually make that argument. I cannot respond to arguments in your head.
My argument was about implied consent, which you have already agreed is valid. I have defined it, I have shown how it could possibly apply to the use of the mothers body, and gave an example in the case of paternal child support where it is used. Not sure how much better it could be explained.
Because the parents are the ones most closely associated to the creation of the child. Given that a child has certain material needs in order to develop, who else is supposed to shoulder this burden if not the parents?
The issue I have with your "style", for lack of a better word, is that it seems to me you don't stick to one specific line of argument. You have alternatively used either responsibility or consent as the basis for your argument, but those are different concepts. I don't see how you can switch from one to the other without changing the entire structure of your argument.
yea - i feel the same, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I tried to be clear. Looks like i failed. But I hold to my point, that so much of your objections have been completely unsupported opinions - i am aware you don't see it that way.
Is it wrong to deny a born human usage of your body? Let's say you cause a car accident by being negligent, which leads to a severe injury of another person. It seems fairly straightforward that you are responsible for the injuries. Are you morally obligated to donate blood to the injured person? donate a kidney? I don't think the answer is always yes regardless of circumstance.
I agree.
but in the what would be the right thing to do " give blood" - I vote yes. Give a kidney - I say no.
How about a 9 month blood transfusion - that only you can do, to save the life you put in danger ?
So, in some type of summary, To the question I proposed, although you seem to believe in the concept of an implied consent, you point is it does not apply to pre birth, because it seems your view is bodily integrity is a stronger claim.
There seems to be some basic misunderstanding between the two of us on what consent *is*. Not on the definition, because I have no issue with the definitions you provided, but on how the definition is applied to practical cases.
I can consent by walking up to someone and saying "please do X".
My consent can be implied if I say "please to Y", and I know that in order to do Y, X needs to be done first.
It can also be implied if I say "please do Y", and either X or Z lead to Y, but X is more in line with my known interests.
In any case, my consent is linked to my intention. Consent is an intentional act, and implied consent needs to conserve that intentionality, either by reference to another intention I do actually have, or by reference to an intention I would presumably have formed, had I been aware of the options.
You might ask why intentionality needs to be conserved. My answer would be that by consenting, you waive rights. Since only you can waive your rights, this waiver needs to be attributable to you as a subject. And the way to do that is via your intentions.
If you disagree with this on a fundamental level, we need to have an entirely different discussion on the fundamentals of self, action, responsibility etc. before we can continue here.
Now, assuming you do not disagree that consent needs to be linked to intention:
If you do not intent to have a child, and do in fact hope or assume that the sex will not lead to pregnancy, then you do not consent, implicitly or otherwise, to the consequences of that pregnancy. To assume you implicitly consented by having sex would ignore your actual intentions and replace them with the opposite.
If, on the other hand, you do intent to get pregnant, or at least accept that result as an acceptable outcome, then you could be said to have implicitly consented to the consequences of that pregnancy.
So there is a case to be made on the basis of implied consent, but only for intentional pregnancies.
The reasoning here is that unpredictable or extremely unlikely outcomes of an act of free will are not actually expressions of that will.
— Echarmion
because ...... yet again you need to support the reasons behind statements like that. Give an example of where it would apply. As it stands it is just an opinion -
I did not expect that statement to be controversial. You are familiar with the term "butterfly effect", I assume? I think it's fairly obvious that you cannot be responsible for every possible outcome of your actions. That would turn responsibility into mere causality.
As a matter of practicality, you cannot expect me to give you a full argument from first principles for every single statement I make. It'd take entire books worth of text. I would ask you, instead, to note when you have a fundamental disagreement. We can then try to establish the closest common ground and work from there.
I avoided using the term responsibility in the bits you quoted on purpose, though I cannot fault you for not knowing that. I don't think financial burdens need to be based on responsibility. Society needs to distribute burdens somehow, and sometimes this means that a financial burden ends up with someone who is not strictly responsible for it's creation. I know this is not a full argument. If you are really interested we could discuss it at length as it's own topic.
but in the what would be the right thing to do " give blood" - I vote yes. Give a kidney - I say no.
How about a 9 month blood transfusion - that only you can do, to save the life you put in danger ?
I think the fact that we feel the need to differentiate between a single blood transfusion, a long term transfusion and donation of a kidney already establishes that responsibility for the pregnancy is not sufficient to completely overcome any interest the mother has in her bodily autonomy.
I think the argument can be made that, regardless of morality, it can never be a legal obligation to provide your body to others. But this is just my opinion at this point, to establish it as an argument we'd have to talk about the difference of morality and legality and that is a thread in it's own right.
In the realm of morality, I think in order to progress at this stage, we'd need to establish just how much responsibility sex entails. I don't think having protected sex is negligent. Unprotected sex, maybe, but it's probably not "running a red light during rush hour" negligent.
Rank AmateurJanuary 31, 2019 at 10:57#2517610 likes
Reply to Banno thanks , banno. An assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral actor. Has a right to life. Otherwise the argument is absurd. So, just for the sake of arguing the concept it has to be assumed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 31, 2019 at 11:06#2517620 likes
A stone cannot consent. An infant cannot consent. A minor cannot consent (to some things). Of people who can consent, being subject to gravity is not something they consent to. Needing food and water to survive is not something they consent to. Being the brother of your brother is not something you consent to.
Can you tie that to the father and mother having no responsibility for the consequence of their act of free will please.
Sheer failure to understand plain English in favor of what you want it to say. Responsibility is arguably so, although subject to qualification. The "therefore" is wishful fantasy - I cannot even call it thinking. I wonder if you are confusing implication and inference. You infer "tacit consent." And you're free to infer whatever you like. What you mean, or should want to mean to make your case, is that the consent is implied, and it is not.
Yet again, just a bunch of words that say I disagree, With no support.
Are we or are we not responsible for the predictable outcomes of our acts of free will?
If no, why.
If yes,
Is pregnancy the predictable out come of sex?
Again, assuming only for the sake of this argument that the fetus is a moral actor, Why are the mother and father not responsible?
In any case, my consent is linked to my intention. Consent is an intentional act, and implied consent needs to conserve that intentionality, either by reference to another intention I do actually have, or by reference to an intention I would presumably have formed, had I been aware of the options.
So, are we relieved of the responsibility of our acts of free will, simply by them not being intended? I didn't want to hit that car as I ran the red light, my intention was only to save a few minutes.
uming you do not disagree that consent needs to be linked to intention:
If you do not intent to have a child, and do in fact hope or assume that the sex will not lead to pregnancy, then you do not consent, implicitly or otherwise, to the consequences of that pregnancy. To assume you implicitly consented by having sex would ignore your actual intentions and replace them with the opposite.
Yet, you have agreed already that the father has to pay child support, after he has said he had no intention of having the child. Can you bridge that for me?
I did not expect that statement to be controversial. You are familiar with the term "butterfly effect", I assume? I think it's fairly obvious that you cannot be responsible for every possible outcome of your actions. That would turn responsibility into mere causality.
So we are responsible for the direct and predictable results of our act of free will because a butterfly flapped it wings in Argentina? Not buying the butterfly defense in this specific set of circumstances. Seems a reach to me. But, thank you for the reasoning behind the statement, it helps.
In the realm of morality, I think in order to progress at this stage, we'd need to establish just how much responsibility sex entails. I don't think having protected sex is negligent. Unprotected sex, maybe, but it's probably not "running a red light during rush hour" negligent.
I would agree, for sure that their is a continuum of responsibility of degree with not having sex at one end, and unprotected sex, during ovulation at the other end.
And in a practical sense, if an effective method of contraception is used effectively, well over 95 or more percent of this issue is moot. And, while effectively trying to limit the possible results of your actions is the right thing to do, I still would argue the mere change in the probability of the result does not relieve you of the responsibility
It can be a dangerous route to go down to base value judgements on ruling out personhood.
Isn't personhood the main issue. If we take that out of the discussion then the opponent pro-lifers vanish into thin air. The pro-choicers win without even lifting a finger.
I understand your point though. Personhood is a nebulous concept and probably impossible to apply to the issue. A practical approach would be, like you say, focus on what we know or is knowable and come to a workable resolution to the problem.
Do you think the scientific consensus of allowing abortions for fetuses that aren't viable is alright? Isn't this pragmatic and also moral within the limits of our knowledge?
Deleted UserJanuary 31, 2019 at 12:43#2517850 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Isn't personhood the main issue. If we take that out of the discussion then the opponent pro-lifers vanish into thin air. The pro-choicers win without even lifting a finger.
And that non-person status extends to infancy now, apparently.
assuming only for the sake of this argument that the fetus is a moral actor,
— Rank Amateur
You can demonstrate anything if you can assume anything.
I asked at the start that this be assumed for the sake of arguing this concept - because it has to be for the concept to apply. If the child is not a moral actor - the concept is absurd. - Again - if one is not willing, just for sake of exploring this concept, to play along with that - fine.
Sorry, but the question is substantive. Reason in argumentation, here, is what I think the whole point is - because it's a philosophy site. But you're arguments seem anti-reason., as if all that mattered was your conclusion, never mind who it's got to.. Is that the truth of it?
really - i have put forth the 2 major - non person hood arguments on the topic. Published, referenced and seriously argued for 30 years. I have given the premises, and the conclusions. And at least to my POV have not had a reasoned objection on this thread.
It appears to me your definition of doing philosophy is agreeing with you.
So, are we relieved of the responsibility of our acts of free will, simply by them not being intended? I didn't want to hit that car as I ran the red light, my intention was only to save a few minutes.
Yet, you have agreed already that the father has to pay child support, after he has said he had no intention of having the child. Can you bridge that for me?
I already tried, including in the very post you are quoting from. Without further input, I have nothing to add to that.
You realize that is a blatant contradiction in terms
I don't realize. I suspect you find the combination of intentional pregnancy and implied consent contradictory? I don't know how many women explicitly state their consent to carry a child to term during sex, but I somehow doubt it's very many.
I would agree, for sure that their is a continuum of responsibility of degree with not having sex at one end, and unprotected sex, during ovulation at the other end.
And in a practical sense, if an effective method of contraception is used effectively, well over 95 or more percent of this issue is moot. And, while effectively trying to limit the possible results of your actions is the right thing to do, I still would argue the mere change in the probability of the result does not relieve you of the responsibility
But if there are degrees of responsibility that correspond (possibly among other factors) to the degree of certainty of a risk, it seems to follow that there is a level of risk that corresponds to practically zero responsibility. That is the responsibility is so ephemeral that it cannot support any moral obligation.
I am having trouble attaching a consequence as significant as several months of unwanted pregnancy, and then giving birth, to sex, even unprotected sex. Of course small errors can have life-changing consequences under various circumstances. But these consequences are usually the result of having to alleviate damage done, not to create some desirable state of affairs.
Rank AmateurJanuary 31, 2019 at 13:52#2518090 likes
I am having trouble attaching a consequence as significant as several months of unwanted pregnancy, and then giving birth, to sex, even unprotected sex. Of course small errors can have life-changing consequences under various circumstances. But these consequences are usually the result of having to alleviate damage done, not to create some desirable state of affairs.
I understand that is your belief, and that is 100 pct fine. But that is not argument.
I think we have been back and forth enough on this -
these are the types of exchanges with you on this topic - that i find frustrating.
You say
"In any case, my consent is linked to my intention. Consent is an intentional act, and implied consent needs to conserve that intentionality, either by reference to another intention I do actually have, or by reference to an intention I would presumably have formed, had I been aware of the options."
— Echarmion
then I respond
"So, are we relieved of the responsibility of our acts of free will, simply by them not being intended? I didn't want to hit that car as I ran the red light, my intention was only to save a few minutes."
and you just say
No.
it is like "who's on first " ( hope you get the reference )
it is like "who's on first " ( hope you get the reference )
Well what else am I supposed to answer if I talk about consent and you talk about responsibility? I can see no connection between what I wrote and your interpretation.
I understand that is your belief, and that is 100 pct fine. But that is not argument.
Sure, it's not an argument. But I don't claim I can easily resolve the issue. As it stands, I see several problems for the stance that, barring special circumstances, carrying a child to term is a moral obligation.
First, the moral position of the foetus is questionable, particularly in early pregnancy.
Second the notion that the act of having sex entails responsibility for the dependency of the resulting foetus treats sex like a wrongful act towards that foetus. It seems to suppose that the person the foetus will eventually turn into already existed in an abstract form, waiting to be born. And now that you have put this person into the sorry state of dependence on a womb, you must help them out. Needless to say, this is odd.
And third even if the responsibility is established, we need to establish that it's actually significant enough, in the specific case, to warrant the imposition of an unwanted pregnancy.
So yes, I don't have an ironclad argument against a moral obligation against abortion. But on the other hand, I haven't seen an ironclad argument in favor, either. Given that there are significant hurdles such an argument would have to take, I think my position is somewhat reasonable.
I understand your point though. Personhood is a nebulous concept and probably impossible to apply to the issue. A practical approach would be, like you say, focus on what we know or is knowable and come to a workable resolution to the problem.
Do you think the scientific consensus of allowing abortions for fetuses that aren't viable is alright? Isn't this pragmatic and also moral within the limits of our knowledge?
I don't judge it based on viability. But I do think that abortion is acceptable under the conditions I've mentioned previously. Though it's nothing to celebrate. And, with some exceptions, those who conceived it bear responsibility.
Now, what in that implies that they ought carry through to birth?
If you're interested in a good test for that, instead of just picking apart his logic, then here it is again:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
If they fail the test, then they ought to carry through to birth.
So we are NOT responsible for the direct and predictable results of our act of free will because a butterfly flapped it wings in Argentina?
If the results are direct and predictable, there is no problem with responsibility. If they are neither - like a butterfly effect - then there is a problem..
Well, what else am I going to respond if you rephrase my statement to say something entirely different? I was talking about consent. You talked about responsibility. Different words with different meanings.
I understand that is your belief, and that is 100 pct fine. But that is not argument.
I think we have been back and forth enough on this -
Sure, it's not an argument. I am not sure on the exact outcome of the question given the premises.
That said, it is my impression that a complete argument in favor of a moral obligation towards carring a child to term faces significant problems.
First, the moral standing of the foetus is questionable, particularly in early pregnancy.
Second, in order to establish a responsibility for the well being of that foetus, we need to somehow connect it's dependence on the mother to an act of her. But the only act that is apparently available is the act of conception, and at that point the person that is supposedly impacted by that act does not exist. That is unless we assume they already existed as some kind of spirit waiting to be incarnated.
And third, even if we ignore these points, as we have done so far, it's still not clear just how much we can demand from the mother based on her responsibility, and it seems we need to examine specific cases.
So while I cannot argue that it's impossible to construct a sound argument, I haven't seen one, either. But perhaps I have not looked enough.
Rank AmateurJanuary 31, 2019 at 17:56#2518780 likes
If the results are direct and predictable, there is no problem with responsibility. If they are neither - like a butterfly effect - then there is a problem..
Is pregnancy as a result of sex the former or the later ?
We know what we are talking about -
I say there is a responsibility
You say no - Butterfly effect
I say really -
You say as above
First, the moral standing of the foetus is questionable, particularly in early pregnancy.
for like the 4th time, this is an assumption in the concept we are discussing, has to be - if the fetus has no moral standing - there is no need for tacit consent - the woman can do as she sees fit. If we want to discuss the concept this has to be an assumption.
Second, in order to establish a responsibility for the well being of that foetus, we need to somehow connect it's dependence on the mother to an act of her.
But the only act that is apparently available is the act of conception, and at that point the person that is supposedly impacted by that act does not exist. That is unless we assume they already existed as some kind of spirit waiting to be incarnated.
There is zero logic in this. How does conception, and that being come into existence - for now the 5th time for the sake of this argument we have to assume has moral standing, oh yea i remember - sex
And third, even if we ignore these points, as we have done so far, it's still not clear just how much we can demand from the mother based on her responsibility, and it seems we need to examine specific cases.
With this I agree. In this example it is a case of competing rights, and the answer would in many cases be dependent on the individual circumstances. For example life of the mother, serious or permanent damage to the mother, the prospect of a servery handicapped child. etc etc. But none of that matters if the there is no tacit approval. Without it, the mother has absolute autonomy over the use of her body with regard to the fetus.
Deleted UserJanuary 31, 2019 at 18:03#2518800 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 31, 2019 at 18:08#2518810 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 31, 2019 at 18:11#2518830 likes
EXCEPT THEY WEREN'T ARGUMENTS. Did you not read them? Did you not read where more than once the author made explicitly clear that he was merely assuming his premises? Look: I can assume the moon is made of green cheese, and I can have that as a premise in an argument. But neither assuming it nor using it as a premise makes it true, and if it isn't true the argument is reduced to rhetorical exercise (which I believe the author understood perfectly well, being a professional philosopher). And any conclusion therefrom gets no value from the argument. Indeed, if the conclusion happens to be true, that truth has nothing to do with the argument. But all of this you pay zero attention to. So, what are you selling?
he and they ( one by the way was a pro choice argument) does no such thing, and i have explained your error in on this point a few times.
But just take a dispassionate step back, you are saying the most published, argued, and referenced arguments on the topic for the last 30 years, are the equivalent of
Look: I can assume the moon is made of green cheese, and I can have that as a premise in an argument.
does that really make sense to you ? Has the world of serious argument on this topic missed the point you are making for 30 years ? And only you Tim Wood has seen it. Or, is it just possible, the rest of the world has found some reason to continue to discus this argument because it has some merit.
Rank AmateurJanuary 31, 2019 at 18:14#2518840 likes
Reply to tim wood please don't continue to make vague semantic references - if you actually have a point about what you want responsibility to mean in the case we are discussing - than tell me what it is, so we can examine it. Stop dancing, make a clear, concise and supported point please.
Deleted UserJanuary 31, 2019 at 18:17#2518870 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 31, 2019 at 18:25#2518900 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurJanuary 31, 2019 at 18:48#2518990 likes
Reply to tim wood just a quick grab off the internet, these folks who argue against marquis
seemed to have missed your point:
and in maybe the single best serious book on the subject “ A defense of Abortion” by David Boonin
he refers to FOV argument as “ the most significant potentiality argument for the immorality of abortion” and then goes on with his argument against - which I have shared with you - somehow – he missed it too.
Again take a deep breath - if all of these people have missed your point in an argument that has lasted 30 years, shouldn't you, just as a thoughtful person - only for the briefest of moments consider the possibility you could - dare i say - be wrong.
Rank AmateurJanuary 31, 2019 at 18:52#2519030 likes
Reply to tim wood I have no original arguement to make on the issue - and in 18 pages have not seen an origiinal one against -
if originality was a requirement on this forum it would require much less band width
The hypothetical judge just above, in my opinion, is not making a case for moral or ethical responsibility, or cause. I'm guessing he orders support as the defendant's burden to help defray the cost of an expense he created, as opposed to others paying for it.
and the difference between " burden to --- an expense he created" and responsibility is ???
Agreed. And since we do not seem to be getting anywhere, I think it's time to quit for the time being. I cannot seem to get my point across to you, and your responses often don't make sense to me.
Perhaps some other participant will be able to make a better case.
Rank AmateurJanuary 31, 2019 at 19:00#2519130 likes
Reply to Echarmion agree - seem to be talking passed each other, and sure i am in no small measure to blame - enjoy the rest of your day
Deleted UserJanuary 31, 2019 at 19:09#2519180 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 01, 2019 at 04:07#2520410 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Earl WilsonFebruary 01, 2019 at 04:13#2520450 likes
who is to say the child or child that was never to be amounts to nothing however twisted this concept may be for you to grasp or how horrible and extremely offending, if it dose offend you then that i am sorry for but the alternate perspective here is this, the child is gone its body now fertilizes the ground and in that begins new life. however horrible this may sound one cannot say that the person who was never born didn't effect the world in some way.
If the results are direct and predictable, there is no problem with responsibility. If they are neither - like a butterfly effect - then there is a problem..
Excuse me for jumping in here, but you aren't actually suggesting that the possible consequences of unprotected sex are a big mystery, are you?
An assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral actor.
— Rank Amateur
And it isn't; or rather, its needs are far outweighed by those of the woman.
You're right that the foetus is not a moral actor. You get a gold star for that. I'll swap "needs" for "concerns" and say that concerns relating to the woman don't necessarily outweigh concerns relating to the foetus.
Also, I find it kind of funny how you're targeting weaker opponents and avoiding the more challenging ones. I do that sometimes as well. :smirk:
Excuse me for jumping in here, but you aren't actually suggesting that the possible consequences of unprotected sex are a big mystery, are you?
No, I was only establishing the boundaries of responsibility in general. Which, thinking about it, might have been confusing.
I think a case can be made that a pregnancy resulting from protected sex is sufficiently unlikely that the responsibility is too minor to base significant consequences on it.
No, I was only establishing the boundaries of responsibility in general. Which, thinking about it, might have been confusing.
I think a case can be made that a pregnancy resulting from protected sex is sufficiently unlikely that the responsibility is too minor to base significant consequences on it.
Yes, but that would change if it resulted in pregnancy. And I don't really get why you'd switch the focus to protected sex. Isn't the point to consider the arguable counterexamples, and to focus on those which seem the strongest? A stronger counterexample against someone who is either rejecting or trying to underplay the responsibility involved would be a couple who don't really care that much about protection or the possible consequences of having unprotected sex. If that ends up resulting in an abortion, then I'd say that they're sure as hell responsible.
And I don't really get why you'd switch the focus to protected sex. Isn't the point to consider the arguable counterexamples, and to focus on those which seem the strongest? A stronger counterexample against someone who is either rejecting or trying to underplay the responsibility involved would be a couple who don't really care that much about protection or the possible consequences of having unprotected sex. If that ends up resulting in an abortion, then I'd say that they're sure as hell responsible.
Arguable counterexamples to what? My theory of responsibility? I am not rejecting the responsibility involved, I just argue that the circumstances matter.
I haven't yet formed a full argument on the morality of abortion. I take the easy way out and just poke at other people's arguments. One of the things I am poking at is that "they are responsible for the results of their actions" is not a sufficient argument. Not all results of an action carry responsibility, and just establishing responsibility does not allow one to attach any consequence.
An assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral actor.
— Rank Amateur
And it isn't; or rather, its needs are far outweighed by those of the woman.
— Banno
You're right that the foetus is not a moral actor. You get a gold star for that. I'll swap "needs" for "concerns" and say that concerns relating to the woman don't necessarily outweigh concerns relating to the foetus.
Also, I find it kind of funny how you're targeting weaker opponents and avoiding the more challenging ones. I do that sometimes as well. :smirk:
I don't know if you are addressing Rank or me, or both of us. Nor can I tell if the weaker opponents(sic) are foetuses or folk who have submitted posts here.
I understood your point to be that a couple shouldn't be held anywhere near as morally responsible for [i]creating[/I] a pregnancy if they took the right the precautions, like the guy wearing a condom. I agree with that. But in response to that, my point is that they're still very much morally responsible for what they do regarding the pregnancy [i]going forward[/I].
Arguable counterexamples to what? My theory of responsibility? I am not rejecting the responsibility involved, I just argue that the circumstances matter.
I haven't yet formed a full argument on the morality of abortion. I take the easy way out and just poke at other people's arguments.
One of the things I am poking at is that "they are responsible for the results of their actions" is not a sufficient argument. Not all results of an action carry responsibility, and just establishing responsibility does not allow one to attach any consequence.
Well, your poking doesn't seem to have done much, at least not in relation to [i]my[/I] position on the relevance of responsibility. There are some clearcut cases where they're very much morally responsible for the results of their actions, and there are some clearcut cases - as you've pointed out - where they're not anywhere near as morally responsible for the results of their actions, and either way, they're very much responsible for what they do going forward, which is what ultimately matters.
I don't know if you are addressing Rank or me, or both of us. Nor can I tell if the weaker opponents(sic) are foetuses or folk who have submitted posts here.
Quality.
I was addressing you, you silly goose. Rank's comment was only there to provide context.
Well, no; if they fail the test they are legally so required. That has nothing to do with a moral imperative.
Obviously it does if that's being used as your moral criteria, and funnily enough, that's exactly what I'm using as my moral criteria, as I've explained multiple times. Even a foetus has a bigger attention span.
That an adult woman deserves more respect than a cyst.
Why are you talking about cysts? That's very misleading, given that abortions aren't necessary until around eight weeks, and that at around eight weeks it's a foetus, not an embryo, and obviously not a cyst. Cysts don't have eyes, arms, legs, and a beating heart. In fact, it's even possible for a human foetus to have a cyst, much like an adult human can. (Source).
I understood your point to be that a couple shouldn't be held anywhere near as morally responsible for creating a pregnancy if they took the right the precautions, like the guy wearing a condom. I agree with that. But in response to that, my point is that they're still very much morally responsible for what they do regarding the pregnancy going forward.
Well, your poking doesn't seem to have done much, at least not in relation to my position on the relevance of responsibility. There are some clearcut cases where they're very much morally responsible for the results of their actions, and there are some clearcut cases - as you've pointed out - where they're not anywhere near as morally responsible for the results of their actions, and either way, they're very much responsible for what they do going forward, which is what ultimately matters.
This whole line of argument is only really relevant if you want to base the morality of the decision for or against abortion on previous choices the mother made. The way I understand your argument, you do not concern yourself with any such construction. To you (and please correct me if I am wrong here), the foetus has value, and that value is sufficient to warrant it's protection over the interests of the mother.
The answer that comes to mind regarding that position is that, if anyone is to judge the value of the foetus, it's the parents. You are welcome to have your own opinion, but if you're going to judge their judgement your reasons must be applicable in general.
This whole line of argument is only really relevant if you want to base the morality of the decision for or against abortion on previous choices the mother made. The way I understand your argument, you do not concern yourself with any such construction. To you (and please correct me if I am wrong here), the foetus has value, and that value is sufficient to warrant it's protection over the interests of the mother.
Only in certain cases: those that fail the moral test, namely the Abortion Act 1967.
The answer that comes to mind regarding that position is that, if anyone is to judge the value of the foetus, it's the parents. You are welcome to have your own opinion, but if you're going to judge their judgement your reasons must be applicable in general.
Oh god no. Parents can be extremely irresponsible. They shouldn't get free rein in every case.
Oh god no. Parents can be extremely irresponsible. They shouldn't get free rein in every case.
Their responsibility isn't the issue though, is it? They just need to make a value judgement. If you're going to say their judgement is wrong you are going to have to say why.
Their responsibility isn't the issue though, is it? They just need to make a value judgement. If you're going to say their judgement is wrong you are going to have to say why.
Sure, responsibility is only an issue if there is value in the first place. But I find it almost incomprehensible to see either no value or such little value in the foetus to warrant little-to-no responsibility when it comes to terminating it, which means killing it, ending its life. It's human, it's alive, it has the potential of becoming a baby, infant, child, teenager, and adult. In fact, on that point, it's common to refer to a foetus as a baby, or by a gender specific pronoun, or by its given name, or by an endearing term. The terms being used in this discussion are technical and impersonal. Each and every one of us was a foetus at one point. It resembles us and shares features with us, such as eyes, arms, legs, and a beating heart. People can judge value differently, but I find some of those judgements repulsive and abhorrent, such as judging it to be acceptable to drown kittens in a river or at an even more extreme end, exterminating Jews. There's a scale, and for me at least, irresponsible abortion is on there somewhere.
Unfortunately, there are extremists who make comparisons with cysts or advocate absolute freedom. There are also extremists at the other end of the spectrum. That kind of thinking is harmful.
Deleted UserFebruary 01, 2019 at 14:49#2521630 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Or maybe you're full of it and that's a downright condemnable suggestion if directed at me. The last recourse of a desperate and emotional ideologue. This is why leftists get a bad reputation. You're letting the team down.
I wish you would stop repeatedly asking me these frankly stupid questions like "Who decides?". If only you could be conditioned in some way. Ah! Have you tried using the elastic band technique? You put it around your wrist, and then every time you feel the urge to ask a stupid question, you give it a pull and let go so that it pings back, creating a painful sensation.
What do you think we're here for? And why should I repeat myself regarding what I consider to be irresponsible and why? Pay closer attention. Think on it some more.
What does "given" mean in this context - and who decides? What is "respect" in the context?
You can ask Banno what he meant by "respect". That's why I put it in scare quotes. I could venture a guess though. Something along the lines of treating someone how they ought or deserve to be treated, but obviously we're not a hive mind on that one.
??? Are you thinking that pregnancy is like a cold at first, and may "self-cure" and go away by itself?
Can you please put a bit more thought into your questions and react in a less knee-jerk way? That would be helpful. Abortion is not the same thing as other methods of birth control. The topic is abortion. The clue is in the title. Once again, the funny thing is, you're the one who created this discussion. You're the one who wrote the title.
Deleted UserFebruary 01, 2019 at 15:57#2521980 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Running through one side of the abortion debate is the notion that women are second-class beings, yet "are responsible," and that men decide their fates, even to the "respect" they're entitled to. It reeks of a deep misogyny, in particular a paternalistic, authoritarian, aggressive and passive-aggressive, and possessive attitude towards all women.
I certainly don't consider women to be second-class citizens or that only men should decide their fate. That's crazy, and even interpreting my comment in that way is [i]way more[/I] sexist than the way that I think about these issues, which is that gender is and should be irrelevant. Banno has done the same sort of thing. It really is a dirty and shameful tactic.
It doesn't matter that she's a woman and I'm a man, it wouldn't matter if she were a man and I were a woman, or if we were both women, or if we were both men. It's a people problem, and it's more specifically an irresponsible people problem. Obviously men can't get pregnant, but even so, I've said that [i]the couple[/I] should be held responsible, with some exceptions like rape obviously.
And you mock my questioning - fair enough. But you answer not at all. Maybe you're just playing at devil's advocate...
You do remember that we've been over your style of questioning before, though? You bombard me with questions that are perhaps rhetorical, and seem really inappropriate. I've answered them in a literal manner and sarcastically. What is your purpose in repeatedly asking me questions like, "Who decides?". Are they purely rhetorical, and is your purpose to defeat me through exasperation at your tactic of repeated bombardment of the same point over and over and over again? Or are they literal, and is your purpose to defeat me through your tactic of attempting to get me to repeat my answer until I'm sick to death and give up?
By "given" I meant judged or treated as. I don't think that irresponsible people (who happen to be women if we're talking about a pregnant person) should be judged or treated in exactly the same way as responsible people. And don't jump to conclusions about what that might entail. Instead of jumping to conclusions, review what I've already said, and give it some thought, and try to be charitable. Or, failing that, at least ask me to clarify.
This irresponsible vs. responsible is a pretty basic point in ethics. Like you said, I'm not too sure why people lose their minds and throw basic ethics out of the window when it comes to abortion. Do you disagree with this basic point? Maybe you do. I consider that to be extreme liberalism which goes too far, it goes beyond good sense, and this is coming from someone with very socially liberal views, generally.
I for clarity. What are you here for? "Irresponsible women" is your line. "Same level of respect," and so forth. My questions are substantive. If you think they're frankly stupid, then prove it by answering them.
Ahhhh! But I have addressed them already! Look back over our discussion! :rage:
The kind of questions I was referring to are the, "By whose authority?", "Who are you to judge?", "Whose business is it?", "Who decides?", sort of questions. Have you forgotten my answer? Be honest.
The rest of your post is dismissive and, ironically, insubstantial. We're nearing the end of our discussion if you continue like this, because I admit that you're doing my head in.
If the value I see in a foetus really is so alien to you, so unfathomable, despite talking about what we have in common, and in a way which is more appealing to emotion, then maybe we should just end this. I don't want to waste my time. I'd be a little disgusted though. Wouldn't you be at least a little disgusted at someone who didn't understand seeing kittens as valuable, and thought that it was a man's right to drown kittens if he wants to, because wanting is enough? Now, before you kick off, I'm not suggesting that these situations are equal, it's just an attempt to get you to understand my perspective to at least some extent.
Deleted UserFebruary 01, 2019 at 17:08#2522230 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Let's try this. Do you endorse Roe without reservation or can you improve on it? Or if you do not accept Roe at all, why not - what's its flaw, keeping in mind it's law and not either of maths or philosophy - and with what would you replace it? No need for more than a few sentences to get us started.
I haven't even read it! :lol:
The Abortion Act seems good enough to me. All I know about Roe v Wade is that it was a landmark legal case which set a precedent about abortion in the US, and that it's probably similar to the Abortion Act. What's the difference? And who cares if there's no big difference? You mentioned the [i]two[/I] doctors thing, but I don't see that as a big difference.
Deleted UserFebruary 01, 2019 at 17:56#2522490 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
But I made it really easy! Look, since this is about ethics more than law, I'll change the reference to law into a reference to morality, and I'll just give you the part that I think is most relevant. This should take less than a minute to read:
[b] (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person is not immoral under this principle relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family.[/b]
Assuming I'm an accurate reporter, anything here stand out as a problem?
It's either lacking or is more ambiguous. Where is the above? Look, it's really simple: if it doesn't have the above, then I don't think that it's as good. The bit about two doctors rather than one is of little importance, relatively speaking, so forget about that. I would be willing to compromise, if need be, on the two doctors part and settle for a single doctor instead.
The important part is the part that I underlined.
Rank AmateurFebruary 01, 2019 at 18:30#2522660 likes
Deep breath indeed! From the first citation on your list: "Marquis makes the points that:..." Alas, he never did, he merely assumed them, and he clearly says that he was assuming them. (I had to resist putting that last in all caps. Do I need to?)
so I am sure you are right, but I have gone back over those links I sent you - and I can't find the quoted line above in them -
Or am i reading your post incorrectly.
is this part "Marquis makes the points that:..." not sure what the .... part is, from the links, and are you adding the
Alas, he never did, he merely assumed them, and he clearly says that he was assuming them.
which if this is the case, you are just once again making the same point over and over and over again -
Rank AmateurFebruary 01, 2019 at 19:04#2522780 likes
In a syllogistic argument, the person making the argument states propositions they claim to be true, and if those propositions are true - lead to a logical conclusion.
If one believes the propositions are false, he argues back your proposition is false, because ....
If i understand your unique objection to this 30 year old argument is:
The proposition that people like you and i have a future that we value, and the the unjustified taking of that future is a significant harm to us.
When applied to the fetus is in effect begging the question
And is the equivalent of a proposition of there are flying pink horses in the air, therefor there are flying pink horses in the air.
When we did this the first time, i countered with, it is not the same thing, because i claim your proposition is false - because i looked outside and there are no pink horses in the air. Since your proposition is false, your argument fails. But it fails because your proposition is false. If you said I propose that sometimes there are clouds in the sky, therefor sometimes there are clouds in the sky. Your argument would be not be false -
So, if you think Marquis' propositions are false, you need to show how they are false. Where this got us before was - no I had to prove to you the proposition was true for you to accept it. Which is not what an argument is, otherwise every argument ever made can be defeated with the universal objection
Your proposition is false, because i don't believe it and I don't have to tell you why, and until you convince me it is still false so there ...
at least that is my understanding where we are on this point.
Sure, responsibility is only an issue if there is value in the first place. But I find it almost incomprehensible to see either no value or such little value in the foetus to warrant little-to-no responsibility when it comes to terminating it, which means killing it, ending its life. It's human, it's alive, it has the potential of becoming a baby, infant, child, teenager, and adult. In fact, on that point, it's common to refer to a foetus as a baby, or by a gender specific pronoun, or by its given name, or by an endearing term. The terms being used in this discussion are technical and impersonal. Each and every one of us was a foetus at one point. It resembles us and shares features with us, such as eyes, arms, legs, and a beating heart.
We can call it a child, if you want. I am not squeamish about the terms. But I think the reason to use technical terms in a discussion such as this one is to avoid the connotations that come with the more common terms, which can distort an argument.
People can judge value differently, but I find some of those judgements repulsive and abhorrent, such as judging it to be acceptable to drown kittens in a river or at an even more extreme end, exterminating Jews. There's a scale, and for me at least, irresponsible abortion is on there somewhere.
But the feelings you have when confronted with a certain judgement only tell us about you, not about the judgement. You may well not drown the kittens, or kill the child, when it is your decision to make. But when it's someone else's decision to make, you presumably want to also tell them "you should not drown those kittens, you should not kill that child". If you then tell them "because it would cause me negative feeling" or "Because I would not do it", whether or not they listen will depend entirely on whether they value you as a person. Which is to say they're going to make a decision about you, not about kittens or children.
Since we all live in a society, and usually have some say about where that society is headed, we need to differentiate between what we would like to do and what we would like other people to do. "I would do X, so everyone should do X" is the attitude of either a god or a petty tyrant.
We can call it a child, if you want. I am not squeamish about the terms. But I think the reason to use technical terms in a discussion such as this one is to avoid the connotations that come with the more common terms, which can distort an argument.
Oh yes, I completely agree. That's why I've been using the technical terminology. But that was just a reminder of what's being left out, and the effect that leaving it out can have. There are people here who are giving out the impression that the experience is alien and unrelatable. It's almost like they've forgotten or are just pretending to be all cold and robotic.
But the feelings you have when confronted with a certain judgement only tell us about you, not about the judgement. You may well not drown the kittens, or kill the child, when it is your decision to make. But when it's someone else's decision to make, you presumably want to also tell them "you should not drown those kittens, you should not kill that child". If you then tell them "because it would cause me negative feeling" or "Because I would not do it", whether or not they listen will depend entirely on whether they value you as a person. Which is to say they're going to make a decision about you, not about kittens or children.
But it's all about value judgements, or that's what it boils down to anyway, however you look at it, whether we talk about mine or theirs or in relation to this or that. There's no way around that. I could only try my best to get them to see things my way. And I'm sure I could do much better than how you've envisioned the exchange!
Since we all live in a society, and usually have some say about where that society is headed, we need to differentiate between what we would like to do and what we would like other people to do. "I would do X, so everyone should do X" is the attitude of either a god or a petty tyrant.
All right, we seem on a good track. We weigh this in the scale of ethics - which does not preclude law. But we stay on the ethical side. In the OP I identified ethics with morality, as being near synonyms, granted?
I assume "guilty of immorality" is just legal jargon. I doubt if England has any laws against immorality, they being sensible enough to refine any such law to particulars of concrete behaviour.
Sigh. Do you have to be so pedantic?
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person is not immoral under this principle relating to abortion when...
(1) Two doctors: if two doctors is standard practice for a wide variety of procedures, then I discern nothing discriminatory in the practice. But if just for abortion, then why? I am not asking if there is a why but just what that why is, and why it is - on what it is based. If the latter is the case, and you have no problem with it, then that seems a problem to me.
Sigh. We've been over this already and I told you that it was relatively unimportant. I don't wish to argue over this.
(a) The logic of the "and" would appear to condemn even to death a mother whose pregnancy has exceeded twenty-four weeks.
No, that simply doesn't follow, and it doesn't indicate that you're thinking about this imaginatively. Our health service would act within their power to prevent that from happening, as this link confirms.
Under twenty-four weeks: this really makes no sense.
It really does. Just read into it, my knowledge only goes so far, and I don't want to just transfer information from some other source across to you each time you don't understand something. I'm not a doctor at all, let alone one who specialises in this area. I expect that they'd be in a much better position to explain this sort of stuff to you.
I'm tired, it's late here, and I have to do some preparation before flying out to Budapest later, so I'm going to cut it short, at least for now, and maybe revisit this at a later time.
Ok, you are right the proposition is not conditional. It is "the car has an engine" , If you wish to argue it, you say, "the car does not have an engine because....."
You want to say, the car does not have an engine, because I don't believe it has an engine, and I don't have to tell you why, so until you can convince me, to my satisfaction, there is an engine. There is no engine just because-
So the argument fails because you say so.
But can we not do this about flying horses and cars, what is the specific proposition in Dr Marquis argument you want to claim is false, and why.
Human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
It is in recognition of this dignity that a person had moral standing.
A cluster of cells, not having any of the characteristics of human dignity, has no moral standing.
As that cluster of cells develops, it grows in its ability to express sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. It grows in its entitlement to be treated with dignity.
The woman involved in a pregnancy is fully entitled to be treated with dignity.
Pregnancies that threaten the dignity of the pregnant woman may be terminated up until such time as the dignity of the developing human becomes significant. That is, when the developing human shows significant sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
Thereafter pregnancies may be terminated if on balance the continuation of the pregnancy will result in a reduction human dignity.
Generally, this will be around the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy.
This stands.
The FOV argument has ben shown to be in error. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/250662)
The notion of predictable consequences as a way of forcing a pregnancy to term just doesn't get started. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/251717)
And @Bitter Crank did an excellent summation of what is actually motivating this discussion.
Patriarchy, misogyny, xenophobia.
So, what else we got?
@S's writing is inconsequential. @Inis was banned for being a bit of a dick.
The FOV argument has ben shown to be in error. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/250662)
You changed the argument into what you want it to say so it doesn't work, and then say see it doesn't work. That is just garbage.
At the time I told you there is nothing at all in the FOV argument that makes any claim of personhood, it was the whole point of the argument.
You defeat of FOV argument is completely in your head.
But don't feel bad, what you did is the very heart of most pro choice arguments.
The fetus is not a moral actor, because (fill in some arbitrary criteria- modified so it only applies to the fetus), now since it is not a moral actor we can kill it.
Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral, and an important part of what makes it immoral is it deprives them of their future.
You use "people like us" to hide personhood. It's the killing of a person that is wrong, not the killing of a human.
Hence, it is acceptable to switch off life support when the person is no more.
Rank AmateurFebruary 02, 2019 at 01:49#2523750 likes
Reply to Banno my goodness, for like the 20th time. p1 of the argument has NOTHING to do with the fetus, NOTHING
Here is the whole logic of the argument
First- you have to show killing born humans is morally wrong, because if it is not immoral to kill born people you can't argue it is immoral to kill the unborn.
Next, it makes the case the major harm done when killing the born is the loss of their future, which they value
Next it just makes a pure biological argument that links a time line between born humans to the unborn humans they were at one time.
And says, that human organism has a future, just as we all had a future at the same exact time in our development
And says, if an unjustified taking of a future is immoral, it is immoral all the time, and the stage of development does not matter
That is the whole logic of the argument, and it has nothing to do with personhood, nothing
Deleted UserFebruary 02, 2019 at 02:48#2523840 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I'm very glad that men can't get pregnant -- what a drag! As she (Gloria Steinem) said, 'If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.'
Rank AmateurFebruary 02, 2019 at 03:24#2523900 likes
Reply to Banno yes p1 is all about you me, want to call us persons, I don't care.
But it had nothing at all, about fetuses, they are not even mentioned in p1. ALL P1 SAYS IS IT IS IMMORAL TO KILL PEOPLE LIKE US, BORN HUMAN BEINGS. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
After pages and pages what I have come to realize is that for many they don't care what the argument says, they disagree with it because they disagree with it. So much for philosophy.
Deleted UserFebruary 02, 2019 at 03:33#2523930 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
IT IS IMMORAL TO KILL PEOPLE LIKE US, BORN HUMAN BEINGS
It is immoral to kill human beings except when it is moral. If we collectively dislike a group or individual enough, then it's OK, desirable, even mandatory to kill human beings. Usually a trained group of people are detailed with the task, and we support the troops with our taxes.
I may not like that arrangement, but it seems to be an exceedingly well established set up. Just about everybody approves of the properly presented war. Just about everybody agrees that killing to protect one's property is OK. Self-defense, sure -- fire away. Just like nobody doesn't like Sara Lee, nobody doesn't like certain kinds of killing. People who are opposed to abortion on the grounds that persons are being killed could at least be consistent and be committed Quakers. 99 times out of 100 they are not.
l, that it is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being. The argument is based on a major assumption. Many of the most insightful and careful writers on the ethics of abortion—such as Joel Feinberg, Michael Tooley, Mary Ann Warren, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., L.W. Sumner, John T. Noonan, Jr., and Philip Devine—believe that whether or not abortion is morally permissible stands or falls on whether or not a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end. The argument of this essay will assume, but not argue, that they are
My God, for the now 5th time. The major assumption he is making is, that the nature of what a fetus is, is a determining factor in if abortion is or is not moral. It does NOT assume anything other than, if the fetus is such a thing as would make abortion moral, OK, or if the fetus is such a thing as would make abortion immoral OK.
All that assumption is saying, and why it is first in the argument is, before I make a case about what the nature of the fetus is, we need to assume that the nature of the fetus has something to do with the morality or immorality of abortion.
Your continued inability to understand this rather easy point of logic is pure ignorance, arrogance or obstinance take your pick.
Rank AmateurFebruary 02, 2019 at 03:47#2524000 likes
Reply to Banno I didn't even make it through the whole post, All this shows is you have not even made the slightest effort to understand the argument, you are arguing against.
You believe what you believe because you believe it. So much for philosophy.
Rank AmateurFebruary 02, 2019 at 03:53#2524030 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank hard to argue with that. I gave up being amazed at our ability as humans to justify killing the people we want dead a very long time ago.
Something is very wrong when 1 in 5 pregnancies in the us ends in abortion. Any one who finds that acceptable has lost their compass.
Deleted UserFebruary 02, 2019 at 04:12#2524070 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
All this shows is you have not even made the slightest effort to understand the argument, you are arguing against.
That's shit. You use the euphemism "people like us" to refer to what has moral standing; I use "person". Then you reduce the worth of "People like us" to their future, as if their past, their relations with others, their desires, loves, regrets, passions, and every other facet that makes a person more than a foetus were as nothing. Then you pretend to derive an ought from the is of a foetus having a future.
The argument is artless.
A person is human tissue. But not all human tissue is a person.
Rank AmateurFebruary 02, 2019 at 04:21#2524110 likes
He is going to make an argument about the nature of the fetus
Before he starts he is asking the reader to assume that before he goes on, the nature of what a fetus is has something to do with the morality or immorality of killing it.
If the reader can not grant that whatever a fetus is, has no bearing on the morality or immorality of abortion he can stop reading.
That's it.
This is a simple concept, and now you are so committed to your completely baseless and inane position you will fight it to the bitter end, instead of a simple admission that you are misreading the assumption.
According to the Guttmacher Institute (fertility and sex education is their bailiwick)... At 2014 abortion rates, one in 20 women (5%) will have an abortion by age 20, about one in five (19%) by age 30 and about one in four (24%) by age 45.5. These figures represent a decline to a low, not an increase, over the last 40 years. 1980 was the high point in abortions.
I gave up being amazed at our ability as humans to justify killing the people we want dead a very long time ago.
Of course we are hypocritical and inconsistent, and that seems to be built into the human condition. We just can't avoid hypocrisy and be consistent with ourselves. We are not inherently consistent beings. We can try, but...
Something is very wrong when 1 in 5 pregnancies in the us ends in abortion. Any one who finds that acceptable has lost their compass.
Yes, something is wrong: We are doing a piss-poor job of sex education and pregnancy prevention education. Both of which are a critical piece of "life education" which we don't do very well at either. Still, even well-informed people engage in sex without pregnancy prevention in place, and women get pregnant who would really rather not have.
I don't think it's terrible that women abort pregnancies the Plan B or early abortions (before 21 weeks). It is terrible when the possibility of getting a safe abortion is precluded. Do you think that "Every child a wanted child." is a bad slogan? I think it's good. Couples who bring a wanted baby home are going to do a much better job of caring for this child. (I'm in favor of couples raising children, too. Two parents are better than 1, two breadwinners are better than 1, two role models (male/female) are better than the model of one person only, etc.
Rank AmateurFebruary 02, 2019 at 12:05#2524630 likes
I don't think it's terrible that women abort pregnancies the Plan B or early abortions (before 21 weeks). It is terrible when the possibility of getting a safe abortion is precluded. Do you think that "Every child a wanted child." is a bad slogan? I think it's good. Couples who bring a wanted baby home are going to do a much better job of caring for this child. (I'm in favor of couples raising children, too. Two parents are better than 1, two breadwinners are better than 1, two role models (male/female) are better than the model of one person only, etc.
I think abortion, as a method of birth control, is a symptom of a rather complicated web of social issues and pressures. I don't believe anyone at the time of Roe vWade, would have imagined that since then, there have been over 60 million abortions done in the US. That is a hard number to grasp. If 60 million names were put on the Vietnam memorial wall, it would stretch for 50 miles.
I believe at the beginning of legal abortion the premise was they would be rare, a last resort, and a lesser evil than having those rare cases seek illegal abortions. That changed. Sex has changed, some for the better, some for the worse. Sex has become more transactional, comoditized, since the pill made the prospect of sex without responsibility a possibility.
What happened was, once abortion becomes available, it becomes the most attractive option for everyone around the pregnant woman. If she has an abortion, it’s like the pregnancy never existed. No one is inconvenienced. It doesn’t cause trouble for the father of the baby, or her boss, or the person in charge of her college scholarship. It won’t embarrass her mom and dad.
Abortion is like a funnel; it promises to solve all the problems at once. So there is significant pressure on a woman to choose abortion, rather than adoption or parenting.
But that’s an illusion. Abortion can’t really “turn back the clock.” It can’t push the rewind button on life and make it so she was never pregnant. It can make it easy for everyone around the woman to forget the pregnancy, but the woman herself may struggle. Life stretches on after abortion, and generally the only person who worries about her irreversible choice is the woman.
Abortion is pro men, pro power, pro all the people around the mother who perceive their life will be inconvenienced by a child. Who want a do over for that responsibility free sex society promised them.
What awful pressure we are putting on woman when we now have a tug of war between a woman and her baby. It may be the first time in history when mothers and children have been assumed to be at odds. We’re supposed to picture the child attacking her, trying to destroy her hopes and plans, and picture the woman grateful for the abortion, since it rescued her from the clutches of her own child. This is an aberration of reality.
This is a fiction, caused by a societal revolution in the last 50-60 years. Much of it good, some of it with a cost. And woman are paying a high price.
We had somehow bought the idea that abortion was necessary if women were going to rise in their professions and compete in the marketplace with men. But how had we come to agree that we will sacrifice our children, as the price of getting ahead? When does a man ever have to choose between his career and the life of his child?
Abortion indisputably ends a human life. But this loss is usually set against the woman’s need to have an abortion in order to freely direct her own life. It is a particular cruelty to present abortion as something women want, something they demand, they find liberating. Because nobody wants this. No woman wants to have an abortion. But once it’s available, it appears to be the logical, reasonable choice. All the complexities can be shoved down that funnel. Yes, abortion solves all the problems; but it solves them inside the woman’s body. And she is expected to keep that pain inside for a lifetime, and be grateful for the gift of abortion.
No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.
Essentially, we’ve agreed to surgically alter women so that they can get along in a man’s world. And then expect them to be grateful for it.
What abortion has become is just a new form of oppression of women.
60 million abortions since Roe is the butcher bill we are paying for our continued oppression of women. Society says we should have responsibility free access to their bodies, and when responsibility and all the fear and uncertainty that comes with it does happ, we do violence on the woman's body to make every one around the woman's life easier.
That is what abortion has morphed into. Money and power have just turned it into a well marketed, readily available, means of oppression of women.
Yes, something is wrong: We are doing a piss-poor job of sex education and pregnancy prevention education. Both of which are a critical piece of "life education" which we don't do very well at either. Still, even well-informed people engage in sex without pregnancy prevention in place, and women get pregnant who would really rather not have.
Agree
Rank AmateurFebruary 02, 2019 at 12:50#2524660 likes
. Do you think that "Every child a wanted child." is a bad slogan? I think it's good.
I think every child is a child is better
But it does point to how badly we as a people need to distort biology and logic to justify abortion.
Examples:
Pro choice people will say there is no such thing as a potential person, but the pospect of how that potential person will affect their life is why they are having an abortion.
Unwanted children are bad, so we should kill them. We just need to do it at a point in their development where it is easier to justify.
Unborn humans are not persons, because ( fill in the arbitrary criteria), and since they are not persons we can kill them. Not the philosophic, but the "legal" concept of personhood has been human societies go to method of carving off a class of people, so we can do things to them we can't do to real persons like us.
A new and unique human life doesn't begin after the process of conception. And even if it does that doesn't matter.
But it's all about value judgements, or that's what it boils down to anyway, however you look at it, whether we talk about mine or theirs or in relation to this or that. There's no way around that. I could only try my best to get them to see things my way. And I'm sure I could do much better than how you've envisioned the exchange!
If you want to do better though, you have to change the form if your argument and hence the type of value judgement you make. Your judgement on X and your judgement on someone else's judgement on X are different. If you don't make this distinction, you make every moral argument about yourself. But you certainly are not so self centered as to assume you are the ultimate moral authority.
What happened was, once abortion becomes available, it becomes the most attractive option for everyone around the pregnant woman. If she has an abortion, it’s like the pregnancy never existed. No one is inconvenienced. It doesn’t cause trouble for the father of the baby, or her boss, or the person in charge of her college scholarship. It won’t embarrass her mom and dad.
This is a rather novel argument against abortion. I haven't seen a college scholarship administrator connected to abortion before. Very creative.
Most abortions are performed early on. According to the CDC, 66% of abortions are performed during the first 8 weeks, and 92% during the first trimester. There isn't any reason to suppose the boss, the loan officer, the Philosophy Department, Amazon.com, Bloomingdales, or anyone else would know about it.
Abortion is pro men, pro power, pro all the people around the mother who perceive their life will be inconvenienced by a child. Who want a do over for that responsibility free sex society promised them.
This is a fairly radical reinterpretation of the idea that abortion is a woman's choice.
"Inconvenience" you say. You bet an unplanned, unwanted child is an inconvenience--especially for the mother who will be performing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to child rearing--an inconvenience lasting a couple of decades.
We had somehow bought the idea that abortion was necessary if women were going to rise in their professions and compete in the marketplace with men. But how had we come to agree that we will sacrifice our children, as the price of getting ahead? When does a man ever have to choose between his career and the life of his child?
A man doesn't have to choose between his career and a child because, Rank Amateur--you may have noticed--men don't get pregnant. Men are not usually responsible for day-to-day childcare.
Women might have fewer abortions IF policy and practice in the United States really were pro-child, and pro-family. They are not. From pre-natal care to post-natal support to family leave to flexible work schedules to high-quality affordable day-care services, The US fails across the board.
The American working class (which is about 90% of the population) has experienced decades of economic decline. Affordable support services have become much harder to find, if they exist at all. For the mother and father to both work, most to all of one of their incomes will be devoted to day-care for the first 6 years. If the other spouse's income isn't enough for everything else (it often isn't) then the family falls into a downward spiral of rising costs and declining income, or a sacrifice of one of the spouses careers, or both, and other untoward consequences.
It is no wonder that couples choose to abort children they simply can not afford to have. For single working women, a child is a much more difficult proposition.
The idea that women should, as a regular practice, complete the pregnancy and give the newborn to an adoption agency, is a remarkably callous approach. So is your solution of requiring birth and then raising the child. Look: In the real world, raising more children than a couple has resources to support, is a very long, hard road with negative consequences entailed for everyone concerned--and that applies to couples that are very responsible, succeed in keeping their marriages together, are diligent and hard working, and don't self-destruct.
The rate of poverty, marriage failure, single parenthood, dysfunctional families, drug and alcohol abuse, and so on and so forth has been on an upward curve because of adverse economic trends for most people. Middle-aged working class white men in the rust belts and rural districts aren't committing suicide at remarkably high rates because they lack imagination and drive. The number of school children who do not know for sure who will feed them or provide them with a bed tonight is and has been on the rise because families are falling apart.
What was that line from Bill Clinton's campaign??? I think it was "It's the economy, stupid." When the economic foundation of the working class starts buckling, families and social networks start falling apart.
The connection to abortion? Abortion is the most affordable solution. Don't like abortion? Then work for a social democratic government that is capable of organizing economic resources for the benefit of the majority of the people--the 90%--rather than the 10% richest people.
Pro choice people will say there is no such thing as a potential person, but the pospect of how that potential person will affect their life is why they are having an abortion.
I flatly reject the argument that pro-choice people think a fetus is not a potential person. This is a very, very flimsy argument.
OF COURSE a fetus is a potential person -- what else, by any definition, could it be? Where there is disagreement is whether it is a person yet. It becomes a weaker argument that a fetus is not a person in the 8th or 9th month of pregnancy, but in the first 20 weeks, there is insufficient neural development for anything like a person to exist. Even at the beginning of the 9th month, some religious definitions hold that that fetus is not yet a person -- not until the infant has drawn breath.
What pro-choice people are doing is weighing the potential person against existing persons, and finding in favor of the latter. Pro-life people are doing the opposite -- finding in favor of potential persons over existing persons. Both positions have political implications.
Rank AmateurFebruary 02, 2019 at 20:09#2525290 likes
Women might have fewer abortions IF policy and practice in the United States really were pro-child, and pro-family. They are not. From pre-natal care to post-natal support to family leave to flexible work schedules to high-quality affordable day-care services, The US fails across the board.
The American working class (which is about 90% of the population) has experienced decades of economic decline. Affordable support services have become much harder to find, if they exist at all. For the mother and father to both work, most to all of one of their incomes will be devoted to day-care for the first 6 years. If the other spouse's income isn't enough for everything else (it often isn't) then the family falls into a downward spiral of rising costs and declining income, or a sacrifice of one of the spouses careers, or both, and other untoward consequences.
It is no wonder that couples choose to abort children they simply can not afford to have. For single working women, a child is a much more difficult proposition.
The rate of poverty, marriage failure, single parenthood, dysfunctional families, drug and alcohol abuse, and so on and so forth has been on an upward curve because of adverse economic trends for most people. Middle-aged working class white men in the rust belts and rural districts aren't committing suicide at remarkably high rates because they lack imagination and drive. The number of school children who do not know for sure who will feed them or provide them with a bed tonight is and has been on the rise because families are falling apart.
The connection to abortion? Abortion is the most affordable solution. Don't like abortion? Then work for a social democratic government that is capable of organizing economic resources for the benefit of the majority of the people--the 90%--rather than the 10% richest people.
Completely agree, and this is very much what I was trying to say. And the person who is bearing the real emotional burden is the woman. The incredibly high rate of abortion is a symptom of some core problems of society. All these pressures you correctly point out, are not making abortion a choice, they are taking the choice away.
RegularGuyFebruary 02, 2019 at 20:09#2525300 likes
I agree with what @Bitter Crank said in his last two posts. I couldn’t have said it better.
DingoJonesFebruary 02, 2019 at 20:35#2525360 likes
If it is a potential person, then it is not a person, yes?
Yes. A freshly fertilized egg is a potential person, and nowhere close to being an actual person. Personhood is best reserved for newborns who have developed muscles and lungs sufficient to breathe on their own. By that time they have normally developed neural complexity as well.
Deleted UserFebruary 03, 2019 at 05:12#2525790 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
"Potential person" as neologism is counterfeit coinage.
It does not seem counterfeit to me, but what would you prefer: person or tissue?
Rank AmateurFebruary 03, 2019 at 11:25#2526290 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank 2 things, firstly, when one talks of personhood, one needs to declare if it is being used in a philosophical or legal way, because the stakes are different.
Secondly, the issue with the concept of personhood, is it is arbitrary, variable, and used with a prejudice toward the desired answer.
It always comes down to:
A fetus is not a person because it does not have trait X, Then someone will give an example of what we consider a person that does not have trait X, than trait X is modified so it only applies to the fetus.
Which turns the logic of the argument into, the fetus is not a person because it is not a person
In your case, a fetus is not a person until it has developed lungs to breathe air.
I come back, but there are many persons, who either through illness, or accident have lungs that do not work, and need outside assistance to breathe. They are still persons
And you would come back, modifying your point so it only applies to fetuses.
And once again the personhood argument ends in the same place it always does, a fetus is not a person because you say a fetus is not a person.
Reply to Rank Amateur Hmmm. Yes, well... Lots of determinations are kind of arbitrary, true. You have a problem with personhood, philosophical or legal. It's a distinction that I haven't thought much about, but now that you mention it... yes, there are differences. I don't really want to think about that now. (Central Processor resources are allocated for a couple of years.)
I could substitute "fetal viability" for "potential person". The result is pretty much the same: in place of 'potential person' I could say that the "fetus" is not viable at 24 weeks. I think we can all agree on what a fetus is, as well as earlier stages of development such as the blastocyst.
Are terms like "fetal viability" or "blastocyst" better for you?
Reply to tim wood So, per my response to RA above, do you find "fetus" more acceptable than "potential person"?
Deleted UserFebruary 03, 2019 at 17:12#2526580 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 03, 2019 at 17:47#2526610 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank not really all that important to my philosophy on the issue. Like most of where the discussion is today, personhood is not an issue. Although often discussed in forums like this, or in legal discussions. It is not really a part of near any academic discussions on the topic, because it is not a very defendable concept. Even if not believed to be true, it is usually granted.
My view is pure biology, at some point after the process of conception is complete, there is now a new and unique human, at exactly the correct state of human development commensurate with its age.
Where I do think there is a valuable discussion is a discussion on the competing rights of the fetus and the mother. Dr. Judith Thompson's pro choice argument is to me the best one. And while I believe I have a reasonable objection to it, it is not absolute.
As for personhood, as a philosophical concept it can have merit depending on the issue that is being discussed. As a legal concept, it has a long history of being used by those in power, to cleave off a group of people, so those in power can do things to them, they could not do to them if they were persons.
Reply to Rank AmateurReply to tim wood Just in case anybody reads only this post without referencing the posts to which I am replying, I haven't changed my views about abortion. I am still in favor of women having ready access to safe abortion procedures.
Tim: Your explanation has convinced me. I will strike "potential person" from my thinking on abortion. Fetus it is. (I would offer to strike "potential person" from my future thinking on abortion, but I haven't had those future thoughts yet, so they don't exist, and can not be edited.)
RA: You have also presented your idea clearly, and biology provides the best terminology.
I do not accept the idea that a blastocyst (a fertilized egg that has begun dividing (2, 4, 8, 16, 32...) is
a new and unique human, at exactly the correct state of human development commensurate with its age
The blastocyst is living human tissue--what else would it be--and so is a 5 month fetus. The problem is in the particle "a" or "the" which makes "human" a noun rather than an adjective. "A human" or "the human" is problematic at that stage of development.
If your view is pure biology, you would want to use human in the adjectival sense rather than the nounal sense.
Rank AmateurFebruary 03, 2019 at 23:49#2527730 likes
Tim: Your explanation has convinced me. I will strike "potential person" from my thinking on abortion. Fetus it is. (I would offer to strike "potential person" from my future thinking on abortion, but I haven't had those future thoughts yet, so they don't exist, and can not be edited.)
So gentlemen, a logic question. If the fetus is not a potential person, and does not have a future, how than can it be a future burden on the mother, how can it have an effect on her future life she would want to avoid, how can it be a future burden on society?
It would seem you want your future cake, and eat it too.
Deleted UserFebruary 04, 2019 at 01:26#2527910 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
So gentlemen, a logic question. If the fetus is not a potential person, and does not have a future, how than can it be a future burden on the mother, how can it have an effect on her future life she would want to avoid, how can it be a future burden on society?
Some fetuses that were not aborted are never satisfied.
Rank AmateurFebruary 04, 2019 at 11:02#2528550 likes
If the fetus is not a potential person, and does not have a future,
— Rank Amateur
It would be nice if you read with any comprehension; and it would be nice if you were intellectually honest. See, this is what I wrote above:
Does that preclude us from thinking usefully about the idea of a person, though he or she be not-yet, non-existing? Certainly not! But neither is it a license to grant existence to something that isn't - as pro-lifers try to do. They, I argue, are not about the efficacy of the thinking about, but rather represent that the thought about is a present fact.
— tim wood
The question throughout has been distinguishing between what is, and what you can think about. You can think about anything you like, but that does not mean that what you think about actually exists other than as the idea you're thinking about.
Translation, the fetus can be whatever you want it to be to support your position.
Rank AmateurFebruary 04, 2019 at 11:02#2528560 likes
Does that preclude us from thinking usefully about the idea of a person, though he or she be not-yet, non-existing? Certainly not! But neither is it a license to grant existence to something that isn't - as pro-lifers try to do. They, I argue, are not about the efficacy of the thinking about, but rather represent that the thought about is a present fact.
as anything.
It is a jumble of words without any meaning. You can think of the fetus as a possible person, but you cant think of them as a possible person if in doing so is in conflict with your opinion.
I gave up being amazed at our ability as humans to justify killing the people we want dead a very long time ago.
To justify the people we want dead? So the future value of people is what we care about, yes?
It seems to me that this point is still unaddressed by you. You claim academic authority to ignore the point about people, but even you use the plain language that makes the most sense of the arguments you're making -- that people's lives are at stake, according to yourself. So you skip the quagmire of personhood while still caring about future value in your argument because of the quagmire of personhood -- it's just unaddressed and assumed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 04, 2019 at 17:27#2529150 likes
To justify the people we want dead? So the future value of people is what we care about, yes?
It seems to me that this point is still unaddressed by you. You claim academic authority to ignore the point about people, but even you use the plain language that makes the most sense of the arguments you're making -- that people's lives are at stake, according to yourself. So you skip the quagmire of personhood while still caring about future value in your argument because of the quagmire of personhood -- it's just unaddressed and assumed.
you are taking that comment completely out of the context of the conversation I was having with bitter -
I may not like that arrangement, but it seems to be an exceedingly well established set up. Just about everybody approves of the properly presented war. Just about everybody agrees that killing to protect one's property is OK. Self-defense, sure -- fire away. Just like nobody doesn't like Sara Lee, nobody doesn't like certain kinds of killing. People who are opposed to abortion on the grounds that persons are being killed could at least be consistent and be committed Quakers. 99 times out of 100 they are not.
?Bitter Crank hard to argue with that. I gave up being amazed at our ability as humans to justify killing the people we want dead a very long time ago.
it was in response to the killings of war. etc.
does that help ??
I am more than happy to address any point in any argument I have made, but on such a long and scattered thread - if you could kind of clearly state the concept or issue you want me to address. With all the scattered words over all these pages - easy to find a few to highlight and argue. But I will do my best
I am more than happy to address any point in any argument I have made, but on such a long and scattered thread - if you could kind of clearly state the concept or issue you want me to address. With all the scattered words over all these pages - easy to find a few to highlight and argue. But I will do my best
Fair enough, and sorry for that. I wasn't reading closely enough. My thought was with respect to where I responded to you here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/250860
When I said --
I don't think I quite see how it avoids the personhood issue, though. That's at least my failing in reading you. If it does I'm not understanding how it does so -- when I read you saying "people like you and me have a future that we value" and "A significant harm of killing us is the loss of that future" I cannot help but think -- well, yes, people like you and me do value our future. This is true.
And then wonder how we count "People like you and me" -- and that's where it seems to me personhood is assumed by yourself, or I'm just not understanding what it is about the future that is not personhood that makes it valuable.
Others have said the same, like @Banno, so I don't think I'm alone in my beffudlement. I'm trying to read you as charitably as possible, but I can't see why your argument is something we should care about unless it is the future of people we care about.
Rank AmateurFebruary 04, 2019 at 18:00#2529250 likes
The first premise of the argument is just about people like you and me. That is it. The point is to establish if is morally impermissible, without justification, to kill people like you and me, and one significant harm done to us by being killed is the loss of our future, which we value. This is the first premise because it would make no sense to argue the killing of the fetus is morally impermissible - before establishing that killing people like us is morally impermissible.
than the arguments establishes a pure biological time line between born people like you and me, and the unique human organism we were before we were born. Without break, in time and space in the world we live in you moliere can trace your existence directly back to a unique human organism that could only have ever been the thing we have come to call Moliere.
If there is a direct and unique time line to the past - each point on that line was at one point a future.
So that human organism had a future, and if without justification, taking a future is morally impermissible, abortion is morally impermissible.
The classic objections are - than this future should extend back to the sperm and egg and every possible of their combination - making contraception impermissible. That is countered back with it is concerned with a unique human organism. And there is no unique organism until shortly after conception
The next classic objection is, that because the fetus is unaware of its future, it does not value it. So abortion is permissible. That is countered with the concept of ideal desire, basically If you get hit by a car and do to the injury are unable to tell us you want medical assistance, we should assume if you were able to ask, you would desire medical treatment. If the fetus was able to tell you it desired to live, it would.
And the current twist on this last point made by David Boonin, and where it stands today is. One is not able to grant ideal desire to a being, until that being has the mental development to know what some desire is.
My initial temptation was to jump down the "biological unique human organism" rabbit hole. But upon reflection I don't think I will because I can't help but feel that we don't really care about the biological facts of what constitutes an organism. We care about human beings. We don't care if the scientific world classifies such and such as an organism or not, which surely does not have in mind debates about good or evil in their classifications. Whether such and such achieves homeostasis, reproduction, or what-not is of theoretical interest only, and not moral interest.
Would you agree with that? Or not?
Rank AmateurFebruary 04, 2019 at 19:17#2529340 likes
Reply to Moliere the argument makes no moral claim about the human organism. It only claims than it is unique, and if left to nature has a future much like ours. It make no person hood claim at all. Its only claim is it has a future much like ours, and exactly like ours at the same level of biological development and it is morally wrong to deprive a future like ours. The entire purpose of the argument is to avoid the issue of person hood.
You are objecting to a claim not made in the argument.
But to save some time will try to address your points that are outside the argument. But to be very clear - none of this has anything at all to do with the FOV argument -
But upon reflection I don't think I will because I can't help but feel that we don't really care about the biological facts of what constitutes an organism.
Because >>>>.
definitive statements are fine, but without a basis it makes it difficult to address.
We don't care if the scientific world classifies such and such as an organism or not, which surely does not have in mind debates about good or evil in their classifications
Whether such and such achieves homeostasis, reproduction, or what-not is of theoretical interest only, and not moral interest.
again - because ....
I understand the concept you are putting forth. Is it pure biology or biology plus something else that makes us persons. And if it is something else, is abortion morally permissible before that something else is there. The problem is, with only one exception that I know of. All such arguments turn into
a fetus is not a person, because it does not have trait X
I give you an example of something that is definitely a person, and does not have trait X
You modify trait X so it only applies to a fetus
factoring out the middle - the logic that is left is - it is ok to kill a fetus, because it is a fetus.
All such arguments are arbitrary and variable.
The exception is, an embodied mind, that you are not really you, and only exist as a biological entity until you are an embodied mind. This is a logical argument. The only issue is you are not an embodied mind until sometime in early childhood - so this allows for infanticide.
So what we really are left with, to argue against the the fetus' right to exist you have to ignore biology, and allow for some glaring logic failures.
Deleted UserFebruary 04, 2019 at 19:46#2529390 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Its only claim is it has a future much like ours, and exactly like ours at the same level of biological development and it is morally wrong to deprive a future like ours
I'd say that its claim is false. But furthermore, the falsity of this claim does not seem to matter for the argument. It's the future like ours that matters, not the biological description -- which is really only suited to species-level, rather than individual-level, description anyways. Biology doesn't make a descriptive claim on some individual about its status as an organism, but rather makes a claim based on the usual features of organisms generally -- and I suspect, like most scientific definitions, it is a working definition for the purposes of understanding life.
So we can put aside the biological description, I think. I'll ask again, though, just to be sure -- do you think this is true, or do you believe that biology is important to the future of such-and-such? Does the description matter at all?
To me it really doesn't seem to. I'd just say that such-and-such constitutes an organism some time after birth, so though the organ has a future like ours it still is not a unique human organism.
Rank AmateurFebruary 04, 2019 at 20:16#2529480 likes
Reply to tim wood OK. thanks the work. Understand your objection that you are not convinced that a major harm in being killed is the loss of your future, due to its ambiguity. Although I am not completely sure what is ambiguous about the concept, but that maybe my prejudice toward the argument.
here is the entire argument from the original argument - it may or may not address your ambiguity issue - if not - then we have got to a good place to end -
A more obvious answer is better. What primarily makes killing
wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the
victim's friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of
one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer.
The loss of one's life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.
To describe this as the loss of life can be misleading, however. The change in my biological state does not by itself make killing me wrong. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities,projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have
constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by
me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change.
When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have
been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to
value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my
future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me
wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any
adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his or
her future.
How should this rudimentary theory of the wrongness of killing be
evaluated? It cannot be faulted for deriving an 'ought' from an 'is',
for it does not. The analysis assumes that killing me (or you, reader) is
prima facie seriously wrong. The point of the analysis is to establish
which natural property ultimately explains the wrongness of the killing, given that it is wrong.
A natural property will ultimately explain
the wrongness of killing, only if (1) the explanation fits with our
intuitions about the matter and (2) there is no other natural property
that provides the basis for a better explanation of the wrongness of
killing. This analysis rests on the intuition that what makes killing a
particular human or animal wrong is what it does to that particular
human or animal. What makes killing wrong is some natural effect or
other of the killing. Some would deny this. For instance, a divine command theorist
in ethics would deny it. Surely this denial is, however, one of those features
of divine-command theory which renders it so implausible.
The claim that what makes killing wrong is the loss of the victim's
future is, directly supported by two considerations. In the first place,
this theory explains why we regard killing as one of the worst of
crimes. Killing is especially wrong, because it deprives the victim of
more than perhaps any other crime. In the second place, people with
AIDS or cancer who know they are dying believe, of course, that
dying is a very bad thing for them. They believe that the loss of a
future to them that they would otherwise have experienced is what
makes their premature death a very bad thing for them. A better
theory of the wrongness of killing would require a different natural
property associated with killing which better fits with the attitudes of
the dying. What could it be?
Deleted UserFebruary 04, 2019 at 21:42#2529800 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 04, 2019 at 21:45#2529810 likes
Reply to tim wood I agree it is unfixable and a good place to agree to disagree
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2019 at 00:48#2530130 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 05, 2019 at 01:06#2530160 likes
Murder is wrong (unjustified killing = murder) because it is an affront to the community. To consent to murder is implicit consent to be murdered. The community, jointly and severally, do not consent to be murdered. Why do they not consent? Because murder involves a maximum or horror and pain and loss. If you argue that some loss is "better" than another loss, you invoke an unacceptable scale of murder.
Agree - can there only be one thing morally wrong with murder, is this and denying a future of value somehow mutually exclusive. Your point while interesting, in no way contradicts the denial of a FOV as a significant harm done by murder.
Now, you argued. Some of your premises - the important ones - are found wanting. Time for you to fix them. I am of the view they're intrinsically unfixable. You might start by thinking about exactly what "future" means and refers to.
Futue - what Tim wood will have if he doesn't get killed
It cannot be wrong to the victim - maybe against him or her - because he is no-longer. Were he merely robbed or assaulted, then it's meaningful to think about his loss. To speak to how a dead person values anything is simply wild speculation. That does not mean that one cannot think about it and indeed much informal expression does run that way. But we're looking for - I'm looking for and I hope you are too - for some precision and clarity in our usage.
The point that the victim of murder isn't harmed because they are dead is inane. And no where in the argument does it say a dead person values anything, quite the contrary it say the dead person loses the future they value.
I am growing weary of rehashing this argument with you ad nauseam, and was happy to stop.
So I await your next waste of bandwidth and the insult that most definitely accompany it.
DingoJonesFebruary 05, 2019 at 01:33#2530170 likes
To the consideration of potential future, isnt there a presumption that the future is good? Wouldnt you have to consider a horrific, pain filled future as well? Also, what about considerations of the negative effects of carrying w child to term and then having it suffer through the system or end up as a criminal cuz they arent really wanted or somesuch? I may have missed this being addressed but it seems important to consider.
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2019 at 04:12#2530510 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 05, 2019 at 15:26#2531360 likes
the point is that there is no such thing as a future anything. There are present speculations and present assessments of present speculations, and in many, nearly all, arenas it's deemed useful to call some of these present activities future somethings, like future values, and even as a convenient fiction to suppose they're real, even though they're just present ideas.
Saying there is no such thing as a future is exactly the same thing as saying there is no such thing as time. Taking your point to the absurd. I can stare at the clock on the wall, and imagine and speculate that the second hand will move one more time, and 1 second of my future will turn into the present , and 1 sec later it will be in my past.
Your point would make sense, if your point was what the future will be is unsure. But in the space time reality we live in there is no speculation that tomorrow will come, and unless you die or are killed you will be apart of it. That is your future.
Illustration: I have a dollar in my pocket. What is it worth? It is worth one dollar. Present value. Suppose you promise to give me a dollar one year from now. What is that promise worth? If there is such a thing as a future value, then that question is answerable. But there isn't, and it isn't. What does happen is that people now in the present make present guesses about the present value of that promise, and buy and sell and contract accordingly.
Can you apply this to the issue at question, please. Which is, the future is, tomorrow will happen, you, me and most everyone else in the world desires to be there for it, as opposed to not. If you want to apply an NPV calc to it. Take all the future things you are looking forward to, anticipating, all the time you will be spending with someone you love apply them year by year, give them a monetary value and than discount them back today - goodness knows what the discount rate would be.
I have done that for me, and the NPV of my future to me is priceless.
Now you hold that there is such a thing as a future value. But you have yet to make any substantive statement as to what that is. Informally, its a non-issue; we all know what we mean. But this argument hinges in part on a correct understanding of the phrase "future of value" and how it's used. And you will not go there. Either you know full well the argument will blow up, or you fear it, or you don't care and you just want to rant.
FOV is not a difficult concept, and it is well argued in what i posted. It is as simple as you Tim Wood have a future, if you do not die, or are killed it, as a matter of pure fact it will happen. You value and desire that future for all the reasons that are important to you. I do not think the concept is very difficult.
To say that anything future is real is a reification of future, and reification in argument is a major error and sin, for the simple reason that it constitutes arguing about something as if it were real, and it is not real. I'll guess that's why Marquis simply presumed without argument that the premises of his argument were true, because he knew darned well they weren't. His was a hypothetical argument, if such-and-such were true, then thus-and-so follows. No crime making hypothetical arguments; they can be useful. And Marquis, as I've noted for your benefit repeatedly, makes clear his argument is hypothetical. But you insist it's all real, and therefore the conclusion follows as a matter of fact. It doesn't, and it's not a matter of opinion. There's no "agreement to disagree." There's right and wrong, and you're wrong. You can still attempt your argument. I thought you did a good job two or three posts ago. But as long as you hang on to this FOV, your argument is DOA.
again - the future is real, as real as time.
Now after all that there is a major logic error in all of this, it is you only want to disallow considerations of the future as ethereal for the fetus, or where you think it helps your argument. Yet every reason some woman would consider an abortion is a projection of the future. The woman evaluating her future, she determines her future life, would be worse off with the future life she is carrying. And for what she wants her future to be, she denies the life inside her its future.
So according to you we don't have any real future, and the fetus doesn't have any real future - only the woman contemplating abortion has a real future.
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2019 at 17:01#2531470 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 05, 2019 at 17:34#2531490 likes
"...as a matter of pure fact it will happen." Actually, no. Maybe? Probably? Intended? Expected? Sure. Pure fact? No.
the full comment was
It is as simple as you Tim Wood have a future, if you do not die, or are killed it, as a matter of pure fact it will happen
Which is pure fact.
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2019 at 17:36#2531520 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 05, 2019 at 17:42#2531530 likes
Reply to tim wood so agreed it is a fact ? The concept of future - as defined as time that has not yet happened is a fact ? We agreed that such a thing as the future is real ??
Reply to Rank Amateur You are so busy repeating the argument that you haven't seen how it has been shredded.
"People like us". A foetus is not a "people like us". It's just human tissue. It lacks so much of what makes you and I. It is ridiculous to try to squeeze all of human dignity into a "future of value".
"A pure biological time line". What rubbish. People like us are valuable therefore the lump of human tissue from whence it grew is valuable... a butterfly is colourful therefore a caterpillar is colourful.
I guess one way this could be the last thread on abortion would be if it went on interminably...
Rank AmateurFebruary 05, 2019 at 20:50#2531770 likes
Reply to Banno all that shows my friend is as many times as i have repeated the argument you have never taken a second to understand it, or the logic. You know it is wrong before you have read 2 words because you know it is wrong.
?Rank Amateur Here is the key flaw: the notion of a future of value does not capture what it is to be a person ("like us").
it makes no such claim - it makes no person hood claim about the fetus at all.
It is the most popular pro life argument in existence, it is all over the internet, I have done my best to explain it. If your have some real intellectual curiosity to understand an argument that is opposed to your beliefs - sure the internet can do a better job of laying out the argument than I can. Enjoy.
it makes no such claim - it makes no person hood claim about the fetus at all.
Don't take me for a fool. What are "People like us" if not people? The argument revolves around personhood. The pretence that it does not is part of what makes your approach so disingenuous.
It is the most popular pro life argument in existence, it is all over the internet,
You are reduces to an argument from popularity? Yep, those god-fearing priests and bishops have such a high regard for the sanctity of childhood; I'll go with them.
Don't take me for a fool. What are "People like us" if not people? The argument revolves around personhood. The pretence that it does not is part of what makes your approach so disingenuous.
all in your mind, and a lack of a dispassionate reading and understanding of the argument. If you want to do some heaving lifting and re state for me what your understanding is of the complete arguement I will respond, but I am weary of these wack a mole arguments.
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2019 at 21:25#2531890 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Indeed, I am passionate. What makes your argument sinful is that it pretends to show that the life of a piece of tissue is valuable without mention of the woman on whom it is parasitic. It is symptomatic of the grossly distorted view of human dignity that falls from conservative theology. Misogynistic, homophobic, nasty stuff.
re state for me what your understanding is of the complete arguement
Here's the thing; any philosophical argument of the sort you provide is apt to be wrong. If you need to present something so convoluted in order to make your point, you have gone astray. You are using philosophy to suit your own agenda.
Here's the rub: a piece of tissue is not as important as a woman.
Now this will be obvious to anyone who does not have another agenda...
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2019 at 21:31#2531910 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 05, 2019 at 21:34#2531930 likes
Indeed, I am passionate. What makes your argument sinful is that it pretends to show that the life of a piece of tissue is valuable without mention of the woman on whom it is parasitic. It is symptomatic of the grossly distorted view of human dignity that falls from conservative theology. Misogynistic, homophobic, nasty stuff.
this is so tiresome - i have said at least 10 times and at least 5 to you - this is a second order discussion - even if the fetus is such a thing as it has a right to live. That does NOT NOT NOT mean it has a right to the use of the woman's body - different argument. And I have share the best pro choice argument for that on here, Dr. Judith Thompsons that would make YOUR case.
This thread is like groundhog day - it is like nothing that has already been said - ever happened
- i have said at least 10 times and at least 5 to you -
...and still you do not see the poverty of your reply. Indeed, it is tiresome. You seek to treat the foetus as if it were distinct from the woman. It isn't. Take it out and it is dead. And the reason you need to treat it a if it is distinct from the woman is that you wish to ascribe to it moral standing that it does not deserve.
Rank AmateurFebruary 05, 2019 at 21:44#2531970 likes
Reply to Banno remember this - you liked it about 10 pages ago
MORALITY
morality itself - is there some level of morality that has a wide application, would be generally accepted as moral or immoral, or is all morality relative.
one must assume there is some generally accepted concept of morality to continue
IF ONE BELIEVES ALL MORALITY IS RELATIVE - STOP HERE
PERSONHOOD
The arguments about personhood are all arguments of if the biology of humans or something else give the fetus moral standing. Although often debated on forums like this - in large measure it has been abandoned in most academic and serious arguments on abortion. The reason for this is that for each criteria given there is a case where such a criteria is only used in the case of the fetus, and not used in the case of a born human. this is just a long series of begging the question.
There is one major exception. Dr. Singer continues to argue that it is not biology that makes us human, it is that we are embodied minds that make us human beings. He argues that this occurs somewhere in early childhood and as such would allow infanticide.
IF ONE BELIEVES NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS THAT A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON BECAUSE A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON - STOP HERE
FUTURE OF VALUE ARGUMENT (FOVA)
Despite the unsupported dismissals of the argument on the board. This argument is regarded almost universally by academics and serious critics both pro choice and pro life as the best argument about the morality of abortion. it is, because it is based on things that almost all believe are intuitively true, or on pure biological fact.
we do intuitively believe it is wrong to unjustly kill people like you and me
we do intuitively believe we will exist in the future and we value it. ( I have dinner reservations for next week - and keep a calendar)
It is a fact that some number of days after the process of conception there does exist a unique human organism
and it is a fact that if you leave it alone - it will exist in the future as only one thing a human like us.
this argument hinges on the concept of "Ideal desire" that it is reasonable to assume that those, who due to some handicap or circumstance are unable to overtly express their desire, would desire things that would be best for them.
The argument against this is that one must have at least some minor level of cognitive ability to be considered as meriting the concept of "ideal desire"
IF YOU BELIEVE THE CONCEPT OF IDEAL DESIRE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FETUS - STOP HERE
RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE MOTHERS BODY
Even if you believe that the fetus is a moral actor, that by itself does not de facto give it a right
to the use of the mothers body. The mother possesses bodily autonomy and she can decide to let the fetus use it, or not.
This argument hinges on the concept of implied consent. Does having sex as an act of free will with a known possible outcome being a fetus with moral standing that has a unique need for the use of your body establish an implied consent
IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO IMPLIED CONSENT - STOP HERE
That is really basically where the world is in the argument
NONE OF WHICH HAS MUCH OF ANYTHING AT ALL WITH IF ABORTION SHOULD OR
SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL.[/quote]
...and still you do not see the poverty of your reply. Indeed, it is tiresome. You seek to treat the foetus as if it were distinct from the woman. It isn't. Take it out and it is dead. And the reason you need to treat it a if it is distinct from the woman is that you wish to ascribe to it moral standing that it does not deserve.
occasionally it would be nice if someone else would actually make a full argument with premises and conclusions that we could debate other than me. All I have gotten out of you is your zealous opinion - make a full argument to support it for once.
DingoJonesFebruary 05, 2019 at 22:01#2532040 likes
Her moral worth gives her authority? Does this apply to other people as well? I have moral worth therefore I have authority over others?
Your argument fails until you add a distinction that the life is of no moral value.
Just playing devils advocate, I actually am on your side in this. I do not bemieve in santity of life at all.
Ive never heard those terms made distinct in that way before.
So how does it follow from that distinction that you have an imperative to make a choice willy nilly? Isnt what you just described as imperative precisely NOT making a choice?
For me, I bypass most of the argueing about abortion by removing the basis that life has a sacred value. Absent that, there isnt much to debate.
Not aborting on grounds of future potential of any kind seems flawed, Hitler was a baby and before that a fetus and on down the chain of personhood....his future potential we all know. That would have been a great abortion, perhaps even a morally required abortion should a person of the tume somehow seen into the future potential. Alas, no such ability exists, so its best not to base a conclusion on something no one can possibly know in my book.
Deleted UserFebruary 06, 2019 at 05:41#2532870 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
DingoJonesFebruary 06, 2019 at 13:32#2533480 likes
Well, two aspects. One is you have to turn, hence imperative. The other is that you can choose whether to turn left or right, that's within your authority.
I understand, its the inclusion of “making a choice willy nilly” in an imperative description thats getting me...what is the imperative that results in a willy nilly choice rather than a normal choice?
I assume like most people including Banno you're not so sanguine at terminating a pregnancy at 36 weeks as you might be at ten weeks. I'm assuming that the idea that life is sacred, that you abjure, is not the same as saying that life has value, which I assume you agree with.
You assume correctly, life should be judged by its value/merit rather than its “sanctity”. For abortion, happy to let experts decide where the line is. I step on spiders, if the fetus is no more sentient than that then thats about how much I care if someone aborts it. That is, barely. Same with death penalty, as long as we are very careful about making sure the person actually did it I cant see why we would keep them alive because all life is somehow sacred.
Deleted UserFebruary 06, 2019 at 19:03#2534010 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
DingoJonesFebruary 06, 2019 at 19:36#2534140 likes
In sum, I offered that Roe v. Wade seemed a pretty good argument and ruing on abortion. It would appear that reasonable people pretty much agree and unreasonable people, well, are unreasonable.
If you don't want the thread closed, simply post a reply to keep it going. Today is 6 Feb. 2019.
Happy to have the post end, but your summary is self serving nonsense.
Deleted UserFebruary 07, 2019 at 17:51#2536770 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 07, 2019 at 18:01#2536880 likes
Reply to tim wood your total objections to the argument were, firstly a complete misreading of an innocuous assumption at the start, and secondly a semantic argument that the future does not exist.
Which was, to your credit much better than Banno's
"My argument in full: A woman has far greater moral worth than a piece of tissue."
From my point of view, I made the only full argument about the morality of abortion, and in 24 pages, no one has made a significant dent in it. Which seems to infuriate you all.
Which, by the way it shouldn't. If or if not abortion is immoral has almost nothing at all to do with if it should or should not be legal. Which is all Roe v Wade is about.
Rank thinks that the existence of a piece of tissue that is parasitic on a person permits us to tell that person what to do.
That's immoral. It's obscene. It encourages acts that are sins against the woman involved.
Rank believes this because of his Catholicism, but is disingenuous in this, attempting to hide his beliefs in convolute argument reminiscent of the rantings of theologians.
Closing the thread will only mean that @Rank Amateur moves on to another. Perhaps there is an argument for keeping the thread open as a sandpit for his happy tantrums.
Deleted UserFebruary 07, 2019 at 21:08#2537290 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Well, gentlemen, I'm glad we've finally put this matter to rest, and I look forward to seeing the notable absence of any future discussions on abortion.
If we keep this is up, we'll have this philosophy business resolved in no time.
Comments (699)
One reason I am not opposed to abortion is because I don't think life is a good thing.
If you think life is a good thing then it would be a bad thing to be aborted.
By life I mean being a living sentient organism or just a human life which appears to be the richest/ most multifaceted form of life.
If life with really great and harm free for everyone it would be hard to justify terminating a pregnancy. But this is not that world.
In general I don't think there are good arguments for the existence of rights and morality as opposed to preferences. But from a standpoint of minimizing harm it will probably minimize harm not to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy.
We just had a topic created about abortion, why start another one?
What about evidence of the negative effects on society (increased crime) of making abortion illegal?
The deeper roots of opposition to abortion are that the fetus belongs to either a god or the father. An abortion deprives a god or a man of a baby. Men beget babies, women bear them. Women are suppose to get pregnant and bear children. That's their function. Aborting a fetus is a perversion of women's function.
In many societies controlling what women do has been an overriding concern. Women are supposed to be subservient (obedient servants). It isn't their place to make important decisions about life and death. Women are not entitled to decide whether to bear a child or not. Fewer and fewer people accept these notions.
We can not suppose that abortion of a 5 month or less fetus is a horrible experience for the fetus. It is not, because at 20 weeks, fetuses have neither consciousness to experience horrible experiences nor a sufficiently developed CNS to feel pain.
Later on, At 8 months for example, a fetus can feel pain, and can usually survive if delivered at that time.
I believe an acceptable position is that "Abortions may be performed up to the end of the 20th week without justification. After 20 weeks, abortion may be performed only if the fetus is found to have developed very abnormally, or its continued presence in the women endangers the life of the mother.
20 weeks is more than sufficient for a woman to consider whether bearing a child is an appropriate decision for her to make.
Aside from the individual men, women, and fetuses involved, the welfare of the world is at stake. Every effective means of birth control must be in play: sterilization, contraception through drugs or barriers, and abortion are all important methods of limiting fertility.
I propose as a matter of fact that every human on this planet can trace their existence as a unique organism in time and space from this moment directly back to the moment of their unique conception
I propose that after the completion of conception a 100% human, 100% alive 100% geneticly unique organism exists, and from that moment on, will go through the stages of development that every other human on the planet has gone through and can only be human.
In short can we all agree, before we go any further that human life, all human life begins after the completion of conception.
Quoting Bitter Crank
If you are American, and uphold right to life as in the constitution, then the resolution is based on natural law.
If there are no intervening contrary events, birth proceeds naturally from conception. Therefore the question is whether human intervention is of the same order as genetic abnormality or natural catastrophe, such as mothers death, starvation, etc.
The rest of human law strives to avoid those circumstances, and therefore it is irrational to consider abortion as lawful unless, possibly, the mother was forced to conceive against her will, and even in that case, it remains an extremely contentious exception.
Fetus for sake of brevity in this thread meaning the unique human starting at conception until birth. I am aware there are multiple names for this entity based on different stages of its development, but for brevity I would propose fetus works for all for the sake of this argument
If we can agree on the biology that each unique human life begins at conception, and if can agree that it is immoral to end that life after birth.
Than can we agree that the nature of that human between those 2 points is a determining factor in the moral permissibility of killing it. In other words, does what the fetus is matter at all in the moral permissibility of killing it?
Await your feedback
Only if we could replace the wants with needs.
I believe that the pro-abortion side isn't a group without morals. In fact, one abortion legislation I've seen (many many years ago) specifies only necessary conditions for an abortion meaning that, at least, they're sensitive to pro-lifer belief and, at most, are very ethical in their considerations.
Family planning, if done well or if allowed to be done well, will save us a lot of trouble because then abortion would be a non-issue. I think the pro-lifer and the pro-choice group can find common ground there. The issue would simply dissolve.
If however we determine there is no morally justifiable reason to kill the fetus, we now need to determine if the fetus has a claim on use of the mother's body.
I think that is the base of the first order argument- await where the agreement and disagreement in the set up is, before proceeding.
Moral positions tend to be incompatible. For example deontology or divine command theory would say that you should not have an abortion because it is wrong and you are commanded not to whereas utilitarianism would say weigh up the harms
If you have to obey a moral system as facts or commands then arguments don't matter. I don't see any evidence of moral facts or innate rights.
I think utilitarian calculations would not favour creating a life dependent on what you put in your equation. If the harm of existing outweighs being terminated as a fetus that favors abortion.
I think once you invoke moral terms like good and bad then you are on your way to a natural utilitarian calculation. However a deontologist would probably defer to God or moral absolutes and say that life was intrinsically valuable or Gods laws infallible regardless of levels of suffering involved being born.
But as an antinatalist I think creating new life conflicts with most moral intuitions like not to harm others or infringe on consent.
If we could employ the best technology and methods for pregnancy prevention and for early intervention in unwanted pregnancy, the number of troublesome or late term abortions would plummet.
Bright lines (before this OK and after this date or stage of development not OK) really do not work. Abortion is always troublesome and prevention of unwanted pregnancy should be the first priority and early intervention to terminate a poor second option. Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancy to term is tantamount to taking control of another persons body without their consent (a form of slavery or imprisonment..
It is not possible to have a rational or philosophical discussion without acknowledging the science and facts behind fetal development and the technologies available to address the problem.
Depends what counts as controlling. I don't agree with [i]prevention[/I], except for medical reasons.
However, there are certainly ethical grounds for [i]discouragement[/I] depending on the circumstances. We could get into the latter further, but I would question whether that's really necessary. I would question whether you really could not fathom them yourself, unaided.
To give you some context, I'm onboard with the legislation in the UK. I don't think that it's in need of any (major) reform.
It happens to us all.
Is it relevant to the abortion argument?
Giving birth to children who're just going to die a horrible death seems thoroughgoing evil.
How about making a distinction here though, between those who can take care of their children and those who can't.
The video is relevant to the latter but not the former.
Then I'd not have an opinion on abortion.
Mostly stolen with some adaption from Dr. Don Marquis
P1. One definition of murder is the loss of one’s future of value
Any discussion on abortion needs to start with some theoretical account of the wrongness of killing. I would imagine most on here would have no issue with the assertion it is morally impermissible to, without justification, kill adult human beings like us. But why is it wrong to kill people like us? While we may want to suggest it is the loss others would experience due to our absence. But if that was all it was, it would allow the killing of hermits, or those who lead otherwise independent or friendless lives. A better answer would be the primary wrong done by the killing is the harm it does to the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. However is it simply the change in a biological state that make killing wrong? That seems insufficient. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which
would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.
P2. From a very early point in a pregnancy there is a unique human organism.
After the process of conception is completed there exists a new zygote cell. This cell has a unique genetic makeup. This zygote is an embryonic stem cell with the ability to generate every organ in the body. For the next 2 weeks or so, or until it is at the 16 cell stage it has the ability to split and twin. After this time, there exists a unique human organism, and this organism can only develop into a human.
P3. All adult humans undergo the same process of development
Currently, there is no other way to become an adult human being, than to start as a human ovam, and a human sperm, to undergo the process of conception and fertilization and the various stages of embryonic development leading to a birth of some type.
P4. Each human being on the planet can directly trace their past as a biological creature on earth from now back to their unique human organism as defined in P2
P5. All things that are part of a unique past time line as defined in P4, where at one time a future on the same time line.
P6. If P5, all human organisms as defined in P2 are on a unique time line that encompasses their unique human future much like ours
P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it as in P1.
One is in possession of one’s biological future whether or not one is aware of it or not. One is possession of ones one’s future of value even if one ( in most cases) does not desire it. As an example there can be a seriously depressed person, who do to the nature of their illness wishes to kill themselves and have no desire for their future. I would argue that it is not morally permissible to allow them to kill themselves because their judgement that their future is without value is handicapped by their illness. The concept of “ideal desire” would apply, and our judgement on the moral permissibly of them killing themselves should be based on what their ideal desire would be if their handicap was not there, and we would assume absent their depression they, like us would desire their future. In the second instance assume there was a person is a catatonic state, but with the real prospect of regaining conciseness, we could not say, that since this person is unaware of their future at that time, they are not in possession of it, the concept of ideal judgement would apply, and we should assume that if they were conscience they would be aware of their future and we should not let the handicap of the catatonic state deny them of their right to it. I argue that the same concept of “ideal desire” applies in the case of the fetus, and their handicap of the state of their development is not philosophically different then the prior 2 examples and we should assume that absent this handicap they would be aware, and desire their future of value as we do.
Conclusion
If P1 and one definition of murder is the loss of ones future of value and if P6 Shortly after the process of conception is complete, and very early in human development there is a unique human organism with a unique human future, and if P7 their awareness or desire for this future is not a condition of their possession of this future, taking of this human future of value is murder, and immoral.
Exceptions:
This argument holds for most cases, but not for all. If it can be shown that that there is not a future of value, say thorough embryonic DNA testing that there are sever issues this argument would allow such abortions. Since the argument hinges on there being a unique human organism and there can be a sound biological argument that one does not exist until after twinning this argument would not omit the morning after pill. Finally this argument would not omit infanticide as commonly practiced today with severely premature and physically challenged children facing lives without value as we outlined in P1.
last caveat - this argument makes no attempt at the next level argument that even if the fetus has a right not to be killed because of it life of future value, that does not necessarily give it the right to the use of the woman's body, that is a different argument that is pointless to have until this one is done. when this one is done - i am happy to do that one.
If doing so significantly lowered the crime rate in about 15 years?
Is this a trick question? :grimace:
Even though I am in favor of abortion being legal and readily accessible, I wouldn't for a moment suggest that aborting a fetus is a matter of indifference to the parents, particularly to the woman who experiences it first hand. A very early miscarriage can send parents into grieving, depending on the emotional investment in the pregnancy. For most people, conceiving, delivering, and parenting children is the central experience.
On the other hand, ending a pregnancy one didn't wish for, and preventing the child that was not planned on and perhaps definitely not wanted is also a great relief. Bearing the unwanted child is no small burden, and lasts a long time.
But would you been happy to have been aborted?
It is relevant because it s a realistic often occurring result of creating a child.
Creating more children is just going to create more children in that situation and not alleviate the situation.
If child welfare was so high on the anti-abortionist agenda then why are so many children in dire circumstances? Children can only suffer because they are created.
Very funny. ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
Quoting ernestm
Notice how this post utterly ignores the impact that pregnancy has on the involved woman, treating her as a passive receptacle.
That is not an acceptable moral stance.
@Rank Amateur's desire is to have the argument expressed in terms that suit him. Don't play along.
No, I would not argue that.
Human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
That's what it is.
It may also be a bunch of human cells; but that is insufficient to dignify it. So if you think dignity derives from the material constituents of an individual, I would disagree.
I don't think it right to say that human dignity inheres in anything. Rather, like any value, it's projected onto others by us. Some value the life of a foetus, others don't. On what grounds can one group say that the other group is wrong?
So allow me to take care: the full sentence is: If you prefer, the cyst is not an organism.
But in simpler words, a cyst is not entitled to respect in the way a person is.
Two things here. I think it obvious that the woman has a place in considering ending the pregnancy. In this regard your Roe v. Wade might be lacking.
Secondly, and also in answer to your Quoting tim wood
Nussbaum's position provides a closely argued, detailed and widely applicable analysis of dignity.
As with all moral decisions - indeed, as with all decisions - it's down to you.
So I am convinced that a blastocyst is not in the same ethical category as an autonomous, adult human.
And I will go further and say that I am convinced that those who insist in denying choice to that woman in deference to the cyst are acting immorally. That is, that what they are doing is wrong.
Now, you choose.
Abortion, Dignity and a Capabilities Approach
Firstly, what I have said about abortion is not reliant only on a capabilities approach. See my reply to Michael, above. It was introduced in the main to contrast the breadth of that approach with the narrow argument presented by @Rank Amateur. But it is an interest of mine, and this thread has led me back to considering it as a useful approach to ethics.
So I really don't intend to argue for the capabilities approach here in this thread. It's just a framework on which to hang a critique of anti-abortionist ideas.
Secondly, the article is a snippet of the literature on the capabilities approach. If you would like more, I suggest you go to Google rather than I. The reply will be much quicker.
Thirdly, my understanding of Nussbaum is that she clearly rejects the notion of degrees of dignity. Further, the purpose she sets herself is not to find out what is the case, but to fathom what we should do.
And finally, you might well suppose that the argument turns on dignity; but that's just one way of expressing the belief in supporting an adult woman over a cyst. That is the central sentiment here.
No.
In the argument he presented @Rank Amateur posited that the reason for not killing a human was found in its future value, and hence by extension, the reason for not killing of a foetus was found in its future. I cited the capabilities approach in contrast to this. The worth of a person ought to be taken as read; they are to be treated as an ends, not as a means. We ought then act in ways that lead to actualisation of the capabilities of each person. What a person is, is found in those capabilities.
The point is to bring to the fore the actual capabilities of the woman involved in the pregnancy, to place these centrally in the discussion of what we ought do, and to contrast them with the lack of capability of the foetus, which renders it of only minor moral consideration.
This is in contrast to an approach that gives priority to the foetus, ignoring the role of the woman.
What about after 10 days when the blastocyst becomes an embryo, or after 10 weeks when the embryo becomes a foetus?
And if pro-life proponents genuinely believe that the blastocyst has the right to come to term, is it right to say that they are acting immorally rather than just, in your view, being mistaken about the facts? Is it immoral to incorrectly believe that something has rights it doesn't actually have?
My opinion? Up until the end of the second trimester.
They might be mistaken as to the facts right up until they act on their understanding. Then they are acting immorally.
So it’s acceptable to criminalise abortion after 28 weeks but immoral to criminalise abortion after 10 weeks?
So it’s unlike the hypothetical case of a police officer shooting someone they believe, incorrectly, to be carrying a gun, when it’s actually a toy - a scenario that I’m sure many will say is unfortunate, but one in which the genuine belief of the officer, even though mistaken, can undercut accusations of immoral behaviour.
As I mentioned at the end of the argument it does not address the right of the fetus to the use of the woman's body, that is a different discussion.
However before we discuss that, we need to understand what the fetus is. Because it impacts that discussion. It is a different argument if it is or is not something with a claim to life.
Happy to have that claim.
No, we can get there. But not from my argument. In the next argument,that is the fetus does have a right to live, does it have ar right to the use of the woman's body. Different argument, but yes at the end of that argument I would say life of the mother and after rape would be morally permissible
No, we can get there. But not from my argument. In the next argument,that is the fetus does have a right to live, does it have ar right to the use of the woman's body. Different argument, but yes at the end of that argument I would say life of the mother and after rape would be morally permissible
How about you show where the propositions are false, or the conclusion does not follow, or the argument is incomplete and fallacious because .... and support your because.
Make an argument specifically why your cyst does not have a right to its existence. So far I have only seen pronouncements stated as fact.
Seems a pattern on TPF. If one makes an argument one doesn't like, dismiss it out of hand, and restate your own position.
Would you stop mindlessly repeating this hasty generalisation? A hasty generalisation is a fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. That's exactly what you and the others on the forum who share your position do. That life isn't worth living for only [i]a comparatively small[/I] number of people doesn't justify your conclusion, nor does cherry picking, undue emphasis, or exaggeration of one side.
Please consider this the next time you go to the keyboard to type up the same tired point. You need to break out of this bad habit, as do the others.
Indeed. There is not an "essence" of dignity to be found in anyone or anything. The other group can only be "wrong" relative to a set of prioritised values, and prioritised values aren't objective, they stem from emotion.
Mrs Banno in the wine cellar with a gun
Last night Banno goes down into his cellar in search of a 2012 Screaming Eagle Cab to celebrate a particularly good day on TPF. When he get to the cellar he spots the bottle on the top shelf just out of his reach. Being an impatient sort, instead of getting the step stool, he places his foot on the bottom shelf and reaches up for the desired bottle. Sadly though, the entire rack comes crashing down on poor Banno, and he lays, conscienceless in pool of blood, wine and glass on the floor of the cellar.
Mrs Banno hearing the crash, runs down to the cellar to find the aforementioned Banno. She kneels down and says Banno can you hear me ? Nothing back. Banno can you see me? Nothing back. Banno how much is 10 divided by 5? Nothing. Banno get up, move ? Still nothing. Banno do you know who you are ? And still nothing. At this moment in time poor Banno is just a lump of biological tissue lying motionless on the cellar floor.
Now Mrs Banno, remembering Banno’s point about capabilities, and the inference that biology does not make a person, has an idea. You see although Mrs Banno freely married Banno a few years ago she regrets the decision. Banno just sits on the sofa with a lap top on TPF all day, living in the warm house and eating all the food, and drinking all the good wine that Mrs Banno provides. She wants out. However she shares Banno’s impatience and does not want to go through the process of a divorce. Does not want to wait, or heaven forbid change her mind. So she runs upstairs and gets the gun they keep in the hall closest in case in their future they may have needed against a possible attacker, and goes back to the cellar and shoots Banno in the head.
3 month later
Mrs Banno , acting as her own attorney, begins her closing argument. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury , I did not kill Banno, he was no longer present in that mass of biological tissue on the floor. I asked him question after question and got no response. So that was not Banno the human being there - it was not much more than just a large cyst, or organ. Banno himself was not a believer in potentiality, the fact that some time in the future he may have awoken has no bearing on the case at all. And Banno has no believe at all that he actually had a future, he lost nothing . Killing him in that state was no different than me cutting my nails, or cutting my hair.
have not made that case yet, will do.
Quoting tim wood
Understanding your point, is the hypothetical you are assuming Dr Marquies makes is:
a. we adult human beings do not have a future of value, as he defines as a the collection of future experiences etc etc etc
if not a - b. are not in possession of that future - for some reason
if none of the above can you cite the specific hypothetical you are referencing so I can address
here is the argument:
The Violinist in the coma
An argument and rebuttals on the fetus right to the use of the woman’s body – heavily borrowed from Dr. Judith Thomson
P1
Even granting, only for the sake of this argument, that the fetus is such a thing that it has a right to exist, this right does not mean that the woman, with rights of her own, has any obligation to supply the fetus with the use of her body.
In defense of this proposition Dr. Thompson proposes the following though experiment.
On the way home from the symphony last night, I was attacked. Hit over the head, had a bag placed over my head, dragged into a van an given a shot that rendered me un-conscience. I wake up some time later on a gurney, with a tube in my arm, taking my blood - putting it through some machine and then pumping it into another person on another gurney to my left. I look over and at once recognize him as the greatest violinist in the world.
My captors, apologize, identify themselves and tell me they are the family and friends of the violinist. It seems he has a fatal condition, that they all thought was incurable. But found out through a fit of luck that there was an antibody only existent in my blood, that if he was given continually for a period of 9 months would completely cure him. Knowing that I was an aficionado, they assume I would be more than willing to stay here and allow the violinist the use of my blood for 9 month. Although there will be some discomfort, they will do all they can to make me as comfortable during the process as possible. They also state, that do to the unique nature of the situation , and me being the only person in the world who can save him, I have a moral obligation to stay connected to the violinist and save his life.
I say while I do agree that the violinist is great, and while understanding the uniqueness of the situation. Me being in this situation was not an act of my free will. I made no judgment or made no act that says I should be in this condition - rip out the tube and leave.
P1 – amended - Even granting, only for the sake of this argument, that the fetus is such a thing that it has a right to exist, this right does not mean that the woman, with rights of her own, has any obligation to supply the fetus with the use of her body when through no act of her own is placed in the situation where the fetus needs the use of her body
Abortion in cases of rape is not immoral, and I agree
P2 Even granting, only for the sake of this argument, that the fetus is such a thing that it has a right to exist, this right does not mean that the woman, with rights of her own, has any obligation to supply the fetus with the use of her body, even if she is at least in part agreed to the situation if it can cause her serious harm.
Same though experiment as above – only. I wasn’t abducted. The family comes to me, tell the situation. I am an aficionado, I agree. We get attached to each other all is going well. Until at month 3 I start feeling bad. I am feeling weaker and weaker. Having trouble breathing. I ask the family what is going on, they apologize, say they didn’t know this could happen - but it turns out taking out your antibodies is hurting you. The doctors are unsure to what degree – maybe even will kill you, but it will definitely cause you some amount of harm, and that harm will be permanent.
I rip out the tube and limp out of there to my doctor
P2 is agreed - in the case of some degree permanent or prolonged harm to the mother abortion is morally permissible . It impossible to identify exactly for every instance what that is, so there is some element of judgment or reasonableness here.
P3. Even granting, only for the sake of this argument, that the fetus is such a thing that it has a right to exist, this right does not mean that the woman, with rights of her own, has any obligation to supply the fetus with the use of her body. Even if freely entering into the situation – simply because she so desires.
Same violinist, same situation. Except this time I promised the family I would see this through. I freely get connected to the violinist. It is going along just as described all is going well. Then at month 1, my best friend comes to visit. Great guy. And we both love the now Los Angeles Rams. He is holding 2 tickets to the super bowl, 50 yard line, 10 rows up. Passes to 3 parties super bowl week as well, Maxim, ESPN and Playboy. 2 suites for the week in Atlanta and first class, no make that a private jet, to and from. I told you he was a good friend.
I rip out the tube and follow my friend out the door
P3 is not agreed.
My counter argument.
P1.
Adult human beings who knowingly and freely undertake some action, are responsible for the results of that action.
P2.
Entering into some action, with a known possible result, is an implied acceptance of the possibility of that result.
P3
Becoming pregnant is a known possible outcome of having sex. Properly using an effective method of birth control, can greatly and nearly eliminate this possibility - but it is a known possibility none the less.
P4.
As given for the sake of this argument, the fetus is such a thing as to have right to life. Pregnancy entails the dependency on the use of the mothers body to support such a thing with a right to life, and as above is a known possible outcome.
Conclusion: Freely entered into, sex is an implied agreement to possible known outcomes of this action. A know possible outcome of sex is the dependence on another human beings life on the use of ones body. Since we are responsible for the known outcomes of our actions. There is implied consent for the use of the mothers body, and unless in the situations already agreed, abortion is immoral.
so Tim there is a logical order of these arguments and not taking them in order just adds confusion and lack of clarity to what is being discussed. Kind of like a Rudy Giuliani press conference.
So here it is with my position on each point.
1. Is abortion in all cases moral or immoral.
a. The fetus is such a thing as has a right to life,
b. The fetus is such a thing as to not have a right to life
c. The fetus is such a thing in not all, but in nearly all cases as to have a right to life. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SERVERLY HANDICAPED FETUS AS CAN BE DETERMINED - I FIND THE ARGUMENT OF FUTURE VALUE CONVINCING.
if b, no other discussions needed - abortion argument is over
if a, c
2. Does the fetus have the right to the use of the mothers body
a. No, for any reason whatsoever, the fetus has no claim on the use of
the mothers body
b. Yes the fetus does have a right to the woman's body
c. Depended on some set of circumstances I AGREE, IN THE CASE OF RAPE(VERY VERY BROADLY DEFINED, LIFE OF, OR SERIOUS INJURY TO THE MOTHER THE FETUS HAS NO RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE WOMAN'S BODY, BUT IN MOST CASES THE WOMAN HAS GIVEN IMPLIED CONSENT TO THE USE OF HER BODY
if a, no other discussion needed - abortion argument is over
if b or c
3. Abortion is immoral, should it be legal
Legal and moral are second cousins as best. I will easily admit that even if one was to show the abortion was generally immoral, that does not generally mean it should be illegal. There are any number a lesser of evil arguments that can be made against the doing away with legal abortion.
Not the least of which, in a democracy it could just be a preference.
MY POSITION IS, ABORTION IN MOST CASES IS IMMORAL, AND THAT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT. I BELIEVE THAT SINCE ROW V WADE, THERE HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN CONTRACEPTION. I BELIEVE ABORTION DUE TO ITS IMMORALITY SHOULD BE A DIFFICULT ALTERNATIVE AND NOT VIEWED AS A METHOD OF CONTRACEPTION. BY MAKING ABORTION MORE DIFFICULT, IT WILL INCREASE THE NEED FOR AND THE DESIRE FOR BETTER USE OF CONTRACEPTION.
IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN DIRECTLY, BUT IN EFFECT ROE V WADE SHOULD BE SUPPER CEDED AND THE DECISION TO ALLOW ABORTION BE RETURNED TO THE STATES. WHEN THIS HAPPENS - MANY STATES WILL AND SOME STATES WILL NOT. LEGAL ABORTIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE US BECAUSE IN MANY PLACES THAT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
HOPEFULLY IN SUCH A WORLD WITH HARDER ACCESS TO ABORTION, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EFFORT WILL BE PUT INTO EDUCATION, AVAILABILITY , AND RESPONSIBLE USE OF CONTRACEPTION.
There's no point arguing with such an insane statement.
The first is the nature of the fetus: the article says :
"Under the CA itself, it is plausible to make similar arguments about the standing of the
fetus. A CA sees human beings with severe cognitive disabilities as full equals in human dignity.
It also recognizes that dignity is not the private possession of the human species: each animal
species possesses a type of dignity. And while the fetus does not possess a great deal in the way
of agency, it does appear to have a stronger claim to agency than a person in a permanent
vegetative condition (not a bearer of dignity, according to the CA), because it is at least
potentially sentient and an agent. So it would seem inconsistent if the CA refused all moral status
to the fetus."
all good
"And indeed the CA does recognize that the fetus possesses a type of human
dignity—although its dependent and merely potential status means that its type of dignity is
distinctive, and not directly commensurable with that of independent human beings."
It is assumed, and for all I know legally correct, to assume due to potentiality or dependence one is due a lesser amount of human dignity. However the point is just made as a given and not supported. I would opine on here that as a matter of philosophy of ethics/morality it is far from a settled point that potentiality of dependence reduce the level of human dignity.
Secondly, the article speaks to the effect of pregnancy on the woman and the effect on her ability to decide the nature of future life. It says:
"A similar analysis also applies, under a CA, in circumstances where a woman claims that
if she were denied access to an abortion, she would lose all meaningful chance to determine the
future shape of her life.37 Not only would a woman in such circumstances lose the opportunity to
exercise a central human capability—i.e., her capacity for practical reason. The possibility that
this could occur, even where sex is fully protected, could also serve to discourage women more
generally from forming the kind of intimate relationship, or seeking the kind of sexual pleasure,
that is integral to the opportunity for a life worthy of full human dignity. "
what is omitted in this is adult actions, freely taken have consequences. If these consequences are reasonably predictable as possible, the adult is responsible for them. Pregnancy is a predictable consequence of sex, even with contraception, and as such adults that engage in sex are responsible for the consequences.
Again, the woman (or
women) in this context also invoke(s) the same type of normative claim that is made on behalf of he fetus, but the asymmetry between a potential and an actual being suggests that, pre-viability, the woman’s claim should in general prevail.
Again - they without support place the woman's claim above the fetus, as above based on potentiality and dependency.
The entire argument is based on an unsupported assumption that the fetus is due lesser rights than the women. While this is a legal reality in most of the developed world, that does not make it moral or immoral it just makes it legal.
Maybe in another thread. It's an interesting contrast to utilitarianism.
The core issue is that those who oppose abortion choose to treat a foetus as a person.
Now a foetus is not a person.
If you disagree, ask yourself why.
Perhaps it is because you believe that the soul enters the body at conception, and hence your belief about abortion has a religious motivation. Well and good - that strikes me as far more honest than hiding your motive behind fey philosophy.
But if you do find yourself developing ad hoc philosophical theories specifically to show that a foetus is a person, Take some time to reflect on what you are doing.
I find it extraordinary that you think a foetus has a moral worth anything like that of a person.
Indeed, it is. Because a foetus is not a person.
Interesting. I think you protest too much. That is, your arguments are excessive.
Do you think a soul enters the baby at conception?
I guess I'm left to assume that you do think a soul enters the baby(sic.) at conception. It's this belief that prevents you from seeing that a foetus is not a person.
That's the whole of the story. Your other supposedly secular arguments are ad hoc defences of your basic position, a result of your religious perspective.
And, again, to be clear, I introduced the capacities approach into this thread in order to contrast its breadth of applicability to that of the future of value argument.
I would propose this more directly points to the unique set of criteria we devise to kill fetuses, than it does with some theist conspiracy.
Also, if you have even skimmed by posts, you would see I believe in contraception, find abortion in case of rape, and significant health issues for the mother moral, and have overtly said it should not be defacto made illegal. My pope would not approve of my positions.
I stand by for your next completely unsupported proclamation, on Banno's opinion forum.
It seems to me that you either maintain that life matters from the moment of conception, or it matters from some other, entirely arbitrary, point in a human being’s development. That arbitrariness indicates that the pro-abortion view is part of the usual selfism that appears to govern the beliefs and actions of most people. Those who favour it do so because they have taken, or can see themselves taking, advantage of such a freedom. Those possessed of stronger self-awareness and moral imagination are more inclined to oppose it.
And it’s probably worth adding that Christopher Hitchens opposed abortion, so clearly the view isn’t always religiously motivated.
I have made (robbed) my arguments both for the the morality of abortion based on the nature of the fetus, and the use of the mothers body, and I have also addressed the legality of abortion. If a complete argument with premises and conclusions. Open to be objected to as un-true or unreasonable. If this is a rant - we could use more ranting on TPF.
Every objection you have made to these arguments were either addressed in the argument itself that you missed, or it was an indirect statement about the nature of the argument that omitted in any specific way what premise was un-true or the conclusion was unreasonable.
From my perspective I am disappointed in the amount of completely unsupported opinion I have received in rebuttal, considering your initial plea that we do philosophy on this thread.
If there has actually been a direct response to any argument I have made - i have missed it. Nor have I seen any structured argument to refute it.
We can all make judgement on what is moral or immoral - that is the basic definition of morality - the goodness or badness of an act as judged by others. That however does not make morality individual or completely relative.
My take or Roe v Wade is, the case was more about states rights than it was about abortion. My views on it are almost completely in line with Justice Scalia's, his many comments on it that are easy to find. Basically it was an overreach by the court, for an issue the constitution says should be a states right to decide - i am more swayed by originalism interpretations of the constitution. And agree on this as well. Now it is important to note that even it Roe v Wade was overturned, which will not happen by the way, it would not make abortion illegal in the US - it would just return it to the states to decide. In such an instance it is almost a certainty that many states will vote to allow abortion. And as a citizen in a democracy I would have no objection to that. That IMO is the process working.
What will happen now, with a more originalnist court, states will continue to push the abortion issue to limit funding or in any number of ways make it more difficult in their states. They will hope for someone with standing to challenge them, in order to get the issue of abortion being a state right or as it stands now and interpretation of the privacy clause of the 14th amendment.
So my view on Roe v Wade, is it was an overreach by the court on the interpretation of the privacy clause of the 14th amendment and as such was a case of legislation from the bench. The issue of abortion should be an issue determined by the states, or if one feels that is specifically should not be, like slavery, than like slavery, they should amend the constitution.
Scalia's partial concurrence in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992:
"The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. ...
"Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since. And by keeping us in the abortion umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any pax Roeana, that the Court's new majority decrees."
Scalia's concurrence in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 1989:
"We can now look forward to at least another Term with carts full of mail from the public, and streets full of demonstrators, urging us — their unelected and life-tenured judges who have been awarded those extraordinary, undemocratic characteristics precisely in order that we might follow the law despite the popular will — to follow the popular will. ...
"It thus appears that the mansion of constitutionalized abortion law, constructed overnight in Roe v. Wade, must be disassembled doorjamb by doorjamb, and never entirely brought down, no matter how wrong it may be."
Why does someone have the right to create someone without that persons consent and expose them to suffering?
A fetus does not express desires and we can only speculate about what it might think about existing. It that is the nature of creating someone.
So andrew there is the concept of "ideal desire" . It goes something like this. I am in an accident, and require life support. I am unconscious and unresponsive. They ask me if I desire life support - I say nothing, I am unable to express my desire because I am handicapped by the injury. The concept of ideal desire is what would i want if the handicap was removed. If I were able to express my desire, i would desire the life support to save my life.
If you apply this concept to the fetus, who is handicapped by their stage of development, and ask if the fetus was not so handicapped would it desire to live. The answer would be yes.
Now the counter back is, one must have knowledge of what one might desire before the handicap in order to desire it at all. The fetus having no knowledge of life or death yet does not, so ideal desire does not apply
this argument is countered by, Lack of knowledge is just another handicap. If you take the first example, of me needing life support, and instead of me it is a aboriginal person who has know knowledge of such a thing as life support, Ideal desire would still apply if he could, he would desire it.
It's so much easier to repeat a sound bite than to explain why you think that something is a misinterpretation. If you're suggesting that it's a false analogy, then I would be interested if you were to spell out why you think so. Granted, it's a person in one case but not in the other. It doesn't have to be. Granted, you don't judge them to have anything even approaching the same level of moral worth. You don't have to. And you should know as well as I do that I don't believe in fiction like souls and rarely set out to defend religion, so it would be interesting, to say the least, if you were to go down that route with me.
Assuming they do tolerate child neglect and do nothing to alleviate it, or, better yet, assume they actually advocate child abuse and also are opposed to abortion, that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is justified. The best you've shown is that there are some fucked up hypocrites in the world.
Yes, those who oppose choice have a tendency to reject any nuance or subtlety, much preferring the reassurance of strong lines; it deadens the fear that motivates much of conservative thinking. That this corresponds with the general attitudes of misogynist puritanical theology is a bonus, of course.
Not at all self-serving.
Just so. What more is there?
The same can be said of the pro-choice who accuse the pro-life of dictating what women can do with their bodies. Do we not all admonish pregnant women who smoke, drink alcohol, or eat rare steak?
And in admonishing pregnant women who smoke, drink alcohol, or eat rare steak, are we not precisely considering the future potential of the foetus? Is it reasonable to prevent future suffering but not reasonable to prevent future non-existence? We certainly seem to care enough about future non-existence that we’d fight to prevent extinction.
Thanks for raising that point.
Your comment does properly recognize that the pro-choice crowd uses an arbitrary moment to define when human life begins, but you fail to recognize that the pro-life crowd does as well. Conception is an arbitrary moment to declare the existence of human life, as is quickening. as is the trimester framework.
If it is so clear, then you must explain why killing a live sperm or live egg is not murder, or why killing any live cell on a human body is not murder.
You assume your conclusion in you argument, namely that a fetus is not a person. That seems to be the issue in dispute. If one takes a fetus to be a person, it cannot be an means to an end.
Yet that tends not to by why we condemn pregnant women who smoke. It’s nothing like the person who decides to kick a football against a window where we’re assuming that they’ll be set back if it breaks. We condemn pregnant women who smoke because we care about how it will affect the growth of the foetus for the sake of the future child, not for the sake of the thoughtless mother.
“A disabled child will be such a burden. Do you really want that responsibility?” That’s a pretty callous perspective. Is that really all it is for you?
A sperm, an egg or a random cell are not human beings. Left to themselves they do not become anything more than what they are.
The law is consistent with only people having rights. The fetus could not sue for its injuries, only the injured child could. What we're concerned about when expectant mothers drink and smoke is not deformed fetuses, but deformed children. Partying moms to be yield people like you.
Since I'm a lawyer, and law is all I like to talk about, I'd also point out that wrongful life suits are generally not recognized, and when they are, there are limitations (except apparently by the Dutch). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_life That is, you can generally not sue because you were born and argue they ought to have aborted you knowing how bad off you'd be. That is such a lovely concept, though, son's advocate suing mom for not aborting him when she had the chance.
True. It's not my conclusion, but my starting point. A foetus does not have the characteristics one would reasonably associate with being a person - autonomy, rationality, and so on, whatever you like. A personality.
The only reason I'm aware of that a blastocyst might be endowed with personhood is if one supposes that it has a soul, or some other metaphysical characteristic. But since this is empirically untestable, it is irrelevant. Hence the convoluted arguments on the part of those who would rate the foetus over the woman.
Each cell grows and each organ grows, so they do become more than what they are.
Regardless, you're adding arbitrary rules here. Previously you claimed that a embryo was entitled to protection under the law because it was human life, but now I'm to learn it must be human life that is capable of becoming something else. As I've pointed out, my liver satisfies your definition, so you'll need to continue working out the nuances of your definition.
And left to itself a foetus becomes dead. The role of a woman in a pregnancy is not passive.
Are you arguing things other than humans have inherent value, and are you suggesting that value exists without humans?
So we're concerned about the potential future of the foetus (to be a deformed child). Yet a lot of those who are pro-life say that it isn't reasonable to consider the potential future of the foetus (to be a child) to determine that abortion is wrong. I'm highlighting the apparent inconsistency between these two positions.
And hence, you position is immoral.
A liver is not a human being. Neither, as far as I’m aware, is it made of a single cell. A human being is one of us, from the point at which we begin to develop, which is the moment of conception, right?
Tim - after giving lot of time for others to do this, in the spirit of the honest exchange of ideas I will help you all with the best argument I know against the FVOL argument -
In his book the A Defense of Abortion Danial Boonin acknowledges that the FVOL argument has the most potential to be used to develop a successful argument for the claim that the fetus has a right to life at conception (somehow in this maybe the best total work on the subject of abortion he missed both your logic and hypothetical objection - you should drop him a line and point it out to him)
He argues that any Pro-Choicer who hopes to defeat Marquis’ argument must construct an
argument that does all three of the following:
1) It identifies an alternative property that accounts for the wrongness of killing
infants, suicidal teenagers, temporarily comatose adults, and paradigm persons.
2) It shows that the alternative property is preferable to Marquis’ property, especially
in terms of offering an account that best explains the wrongness of killing.
3) It shows that the fetus does not possess this alternative property (or that it doesn’t
possess the property during the period of gestation in which the majority of
abortions take place)
He does this by delineating a line in the pregnancy at about the 25 week point where the fetus
begins to have organized cortical brain activity. And his argument is establishing a different criteria for the ideal desire argument.
and it goes something like this - a being must have at least some actual desires to be attributed any
ideal desires.
to me this is just a subtle change in the ideal desire argument that one must have a knowledge of the desire first.
I don't find this objection sufficient - others might.
And certainly others can do a better job of explaining it, my honesty only goes so far - but there is where to look if you want the best argument against FVOL.
Last aside - I don't even think Boonin thought it was all that good an argument. And spends way more time and think comes closest supporting Judith Thomsons argument on the use of the woman's body.
Then your conclusion is your starting point. If you start with the idea that only people have rights and that fetuses aren't people, then what's there to debate? I'd think the issue for debate would be whether your definition of "people" is sustainable, especially in light of the fact that many of those we consider "people" do not have the attributes you list. For example, an infant, a coma patient, a severely brain injured person, a drunk person, an asleep person, and many others would not be rational or autonomous. I could accuse you of ensouling people as well, arguing that the reason such people are afforded rights is that they have that magical sprinkling of humanity in them, call it a soul or what you will.
Not at all. Indeed, the Capacities approach has been taken on board by disabilities advocates precisely because it seeks to have each person treated well.
I'm not sure it is inconsistent. Only people can sue, not fetuses, so if you abort the fetus, it never gained any rights to do anything. The thing that sues is the person, complaining his mother smoked, the factory produced noxious fumes, or drug company failed to warn mothers of the dangers.
Besides, it's a just a little outlandish to suggest that anyone who disagrees with Kant's ethics is immoral, don't you think?
in my argument, and in subsequent accounts Dr. Marquis uses something about 2 weeks after the process of conception, around 16 cells, after the prospect of twining has past as the establishment of the a unique human organism.
What list are you looking at?
Again, the Capabilities approach does not suffer this problem.
But here's a question for you: Do you think a blastocyst is a person?
Now if someone did, isn't it odd that their person has no personality?
A foetus is not a person, the pregnant woman is a person, so the choices of the pregnant woman overwhelm any responsibility we have to the foetus.
I'm not making an argument from the law. I'm making an argument about what we value.
And it is actions, not beliefs, that are moral. What would be immoral is preventing a woman from exercising her own choice because of a misguided believe in souls.
I think if you save someone's life who is unconscious after an accident then you are acting on your desires not there's. (Unless they have left a living will)
If you want to imagine what someone might ideally desire that is a quagmire. There are lots of things people might desire and not achieve or things they might want to change about themselves. Would a child want to grow up in poverty for example? Would a child want to have a large nose or autism or live in religious household or country?
It is not clear what life someone might choose for themselves if they knew all the facts about life.You can only create a child based on your own desires and standards (or lack thereof)
The embodied mind, a the definition of a person, which you are almost making here, is IMO the only logical argument for delineating a non-arbitrary criteria for "personhood".
The only problem most people have with it, is it also allows infanticide. In general - that is a little offsetting
The concept is what others should assume the person would desire, if they were capable of understanding and communicating their desires.
Almost, but not.
The qualities listed by Nussbaum are sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
A newborn is a person.
You’ll have to quote me on what I said was worthless.
Quoting Banno
I'm yet to hear an answer to the question I asked you earlier. I'll remind you of our exchange.
Quoting Michael
Quoting Banno
Quoting Michael
And if "prevention" doesn't make your other comment a straw man, "soul" definitely does. I refer you back to my previous posts. "It's much easier to critique if you start by misinterpreting". Yet more inadvertent irony. When you say such things, do you ever wonder whether they'll come back and bite you in the arse?
i have now been back of that document 3 or 4 times and I cant see where Ms. Nussbaun uses those criteria to establish anything with relation to the fetus obtaining personhood. I only saw them used once
here:
the CA understands the basis of human dignity far more inclusively: human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, and appetite as well as in rationality
in the context of adults in a society.
Not my article and I certainly could be missing the place she applies it to the fetus, but i cant find it. If it would not be too much trouble could you give me your definitions of what those things mean. Or copy and past in context the part of her paper you are alluding to.
Meh. I wouldn't criminalise abortion per se. A third trimester abortion would be a tragedy rather than a crime.
Oh wait, sorry, I'm just not reading your comment properly. "One of us from the moment of conception". Although I'm making the point that you and the others are arguing over the wrong thing. It's not even about that kind of classification at that period in time in my view.
I'm not here to defend her, or for that matter to advocate the capabilities approach. It's purpose here is to contrast with the shallow, ad hoc FOV view you advocated; and to show that there are much more subtle and useful ways of elucidating personhood than relying on conception.
Keeping track of the argument, you had made the claim that my position logically involves infanticide: Quoting Rank Amateur
I've shown that it need not. Having said that, it would allow for euthanasia, another advantage for it in my opinion.
As for the personhood of the foetus, why would she be expected to argue the obvious? The foetus is not a person; "the fetus does not possess a great deal in the way of agency".
For some reason I was having to explain what a human being is, and that it is neither a sperm, an egg nor a single cell. I don’t know what you’re getting at with the oak tree analogy.
I don’t know. But what I’m saying is that if human life is to be valued, it must be from the moment of its conception. Otherwise people will begin taking opportunities to kill it when it suits them to, as currently happens.
is that some type of agreement that no where in that work you linked she ever applied that criteria specifically to determine the moral standing of the fetus? If you scroll back a few pages i pasted all she had to say about it. And made the point none was supported.
You are so all over the map, it is like a Sarah Sanders press conference. I am sure you are a nice man - but we are not going to come to any understanding - we have both exchanged our ideas - not sure there is much point in continuing.
This is directly from the article.
I dont think that follows. Human life can have value that isnt intrinsic. You can value human life for traits that are present in a newborn but not a zygote, or egg or sperm or anywhere on the scale. It just depends on where/when the traits are present.
Your answer is a bit like saying that it matters from the point that it's an oak tree, but with the suggestion that it has virtually always been an oak tree, and always will be, until it ceases to exist as such. People then argue over at what point it was an oak tree instead of thinking about why it's valuable.
Yes, it's invalid speculation.
I highlighted the problem with the speculation about others desires and pointed out they are your desires not the other persons.
An unborn child has no desires real or imagined. So you are imposing a biased values system on them.
A foetus has very few unfulfilled capabilities. Capabilities provide an evaluable metric, not provided by speculations abut desires.
Skip ahead years later. I now have deep regrets for not planting that acorn when I had the opportunity to do so, and for not giving it due consideration. I could've had an oak tree by now, but I threw that acorn in the bin, because it was just an acorn.
Come to think of it, this reminds me of the story of the ugly duckling. Banno, do you hunt ugly ducklings? After all, they're not swans. They don't have those beautiful white feathers. Fire away!
But you're dancing around the question. What is a human being? Why is a sperm attached to an egg a person and a fingernail not?
Yes, but what about the drunk homeless man, asleep in the gutter? Shall we kill this insentient, unemotional, inaffectionate, physically unhealthy, and irrational hunk of flesh before he awakes and sobers up?
I'll pay attention to you in a moment. I see you've got your hand raised.
As to AJJ, his position is explicitly that certain things are clearly classified as human and others not, so he does have answer the question, even if you believe you have a better solution that avoids his problem.
Note the term approach. The list is not a definition of personhood. It's rather a way of thinking about what we ought to do. A the least we ought not stand in the way of a person with a disability seeking emotional fulfilment; nor prevent a child from developing an understanding of their world; nor a drunk from developing whatever capabilities they have.
Nor a foetus from growing; if it were not for the overwhelming capabilities of the woman.
Sure, I'll value them both, but lets say there's a need for a law that prohibits cutting down oak trees. Do you get fined for stepping on an acorn? What's the difference between the two?
I'm not sure how you define "approach" here other than a definition that works only sometimes. Quoting Banno
I don't understand how this follows. You started out trying to generally define personhood and then threw down a balancing test to use when deciding fetal rights versus women's rights.
I don't do definitions. Again, what I wish to do with the capabilities approach is to show how shallow the future of value approach is.
Reject the CA, if you see something better. But take on board the the FOV is worse.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/249170
Did you present an alternative?
Do you group yourself with him? I'd not noticed you presenting an independent opinion.
What is your opinion?
I destroyed the first one. Tree or acorn?
Are you a millennial? :rofl:
I think when it comes to the unborn child it has no similarities with someone who has already experienced life and formed preferences. Your daughter may have shown that she has a the ability to enjoy life and has interests that might be restored to her.
I suffer from long term depression and anxiety. Everyday you weigh up the goods and bad's of a the situation. It is not a simple dichotomous decision where you know the right course of action or outcome.
I think the problem is that once you are born and have lived some years it is not easy to commit suicide because you have an array of conflicting desires and some instincts for self preservation. This can make the situation worse. So people are like in limbo or purgatory. That is why it can be better to abort a fetus before it is trapped in this quagmire.
There is far more capacity for suffering after you are born than as a fetus.
I would not help someone kill them self but I don't think I can know whether it is the wrong decision for them to make. You might prolong someone's suffer inadvertently by helping them
I think a lot of objection to abortion is simply virtue signalling. If someone claims to be concerned about children and their outcomes and potential then what have they done for any of the children in need that exist to day.
I think children suffering and starving is a defense for abortion because abortion would prevent unnecessary suffering and neglect and over population etc. And Because arguments against abortion are based on the alleged value of the life being aborted.
I think it would be better for a child not to have existed than to have starved to death or committed suicide after school bullying etc. The abortion debate is silly if we clearly do not have just outcomes for children.
Take care of yourself please. I wish I had some great platitude I could share that would help that view, but I don't know if something like that exists. So, just take good care of yourself please
No problem
A quibble. A one second old embryo has minimal worth, but a 10 year old child infinite worth. At what moment in time does this thing have sufficient worth to cause us to protect it fully? That moment is called personhood.
This misunderstands @Rank Amateur's post. Roe v. Wade is in fact about the state's (meaning the government's) limits and rights to regulate abortion. The civil war, to the extent it was about state's rights, was about the authority of the federal government to dictate it's authority upon the states (meaning the individual states of the Confederacy). I think you're equivocating with the term "state" here.
I'll accept the CA, but reject your criteria you've offered. I'm fine with accepting the conclusion that we will never define the essential characteristics of a person, but I instead fall back on the idea that I know a conceptus is not a person but that a newborn is. The precise delineating line is unclear, so within the grey area, I give the benefit of doubt to personhood.
I don't shrink from ensoulment either, as I do believe the newborn is sacred, yet the embryo not. Religious talk causes discomfort I know, so substitute ensoulment with simple becoming.
The Civil War "state's right" issue was a 10th Amendment argument, arguing the federal government was improperly imposing its power on the individual states. The term states' rights here means the actual states, as opposed to the federal government.
You’re being obtuse. You are a human being; you have been one from the moment you began to develop. You did not develop from a sperm cell, you did not develop from an egg cell, you have never been a liver cell, you have never been a fingernail. The combination of the former two was your conception and beginning; the latter two are simply a part of you.
Don’t really know what you’re struggling with. Human life begins from its conception, from what other point can you say it begins? If it is going to be valued, it should be so from then for the reason I gave.
Here’s a short clip of Hitchens on abortion: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Apt4iR6axnY
And I don’t suppose that, which is my whole point.
if the decision in row v wade, was about the legality of abortion, if repealed, it would then make abortion illegal. That is not the case. If repealed, the decision would go to the individual states. Most IMO would allow it, some would not.
The civil war does have many parallels. There was a large disagreement among Americans about what "a person was". One group was using an arbitrary criteria to enslave an entire group of people
Because it improved the quality of their life. Without their slaves their life would be much more difficult.
Most of these people lived in the southern states of the US. They said this slavery thing was a matter of choice, if you don't want a slave, don't get one. There is nothing in the constitution that says I can't have one, it is legal and there is nothing you can do about it. And they where right.
Then the country began to grow, and as new states were the union, there was the question of whether or not they would be slave states or not. Now the states in the south saw a problem coming. If most of these states were free, that view would gain a popular majority, and the federal government might pass some law that slavery was illegal everywhere, They argued that slavery, was not prohibited in the constitution and claimed it was a state right. Seeing this was not going to happen and facing a growing storm driven by the underlying moral truth that slavery was wrong. They left the union.
In the interest of some brevity
Skip to Lincoln declares the slaves free in the emancipation proclamation, But even Lincoln was much less than sure this would survive a constitutional challenge in the court. And in hind sight most legal opinions is, it would not. What was needed to end slavery was an amendment to the constitution. And so there was.
Now if you want a real moral dilemma it is generally believed to be true, that Lincoln extended the war, and the loss of life, in order to get the constitutional amendment and avoid the south entering the union and challenging the emancipation proclamation in court
If society allows us to do something then it is a right. Anyone can do any action that is possible and ignore societies strictures but if you want to discuss abortion in the framework of societies strictures and morality then society allows people to have children.
My point is that why should people have to defend having an abortion and not have to defend creating a child. As I have said someone can suffer far more after they are born than in the womb, or if they weren't born, so creating a child has a lot of ramifications and the child is not created at her request.
Antinatalists consider creating a child worse than terminating a pregnancy. The anti abortionists do not seem concerned with the ethics of creating a child in the first place and the lack of consent involved and the future suffering of the child preferring to focus on the time in the womb which no one has in memories and where no apparent suffering is involved in that brief existence.
No, no, no. That's not actually reflective of reality. There is no objective point at which sufficient worth can be attained. The whole reason why this topic is so controversial is because there is such variation. Different people value this "thing" differently or not at all depending on a number of subjective factors. People have different feelings, different priorities, different ways of thinking. That's the key determinant here, not personhood. [I]Your[/I] rules are not [I]the[/I] rules. There are no rules we must all adhere to, we each set our own.
This strikes me as a global objection to ethical analysis generally and a declaration of ethical subjectivism,
You speak of the massive variations in opinions and subjective viewpoints, but there's actually a well formed consensus on whether the intentional killing of a healthy, bouncing baby boy is unethical. If we can't say whether the killing of an embryo is objectively wrong because all such determinations are necessarily subjective, then it follows we can't say the same for the murder of you and me. If I've misunderstood your position and you actually believe there is an objective basis to declare the murder of you or me unethical, then you'll have to explain why those same objective criteria cannot be used to evaluate what may rightly be done to embryos.
Why was a I a human being the minute I began to develop? If you keep saying it, does it just become true?
If I have a stack of wood, a saw, and a set of plans, do I have a table?
No, for the same reason a sperm and an egg when separate don’t give you a human being. If it was the case that putting those things in a pile caused them to form themselves, then yes, you’d have an embryonic table, and eventually a fully developed table.
No objection whatsoever to ethical analysis generally. A declaration of ethical subjectivism? Why not?
Quoting Hanover
I agree. That's not what I meant. I meant that there's a variation [i]within a particular range[/I] to the extent that it makes this a highly controversial topic. This discussion and countless others are a testament to that. These variations have significant consequences in terms of normative ethics.
Quoting Hanover
Correct. An [i]objective[/I] morality is neither epistemologically justified nor necessary. It's just a shock tactic on your part to bring up murder, I suspect. I certainly judge murder to be deeply wrong. My moral overview is not that nothing is wrong and that therefore anything goes, which is the suggestion I suspect you of planting. I just don't believe in [i]objective[/I] morality.
Quoting Hanover
You've not misunderstood.
Here is where the whole moral argument is right now.
MORALITY
morality itself - is there some level of morality that has a wide application, would be generally accepted as moral or immoral, or is all morality relative.
one must assume there is some generally accepted concept of morality to continue
IF ONE BELIEVES ALL MORALITY IS RELATIVE - STOP HERE
PERSONHOOD
The arguments about personhood are all arguments of if the biology of humans or something else give the fetus moral standing. Although often debated on forums like this - in large measure it has been abandoned in most academic and serious arguments on abortion. The reason for this is that for each criteria given there is a case where such a criteria is only used in the case of the fetus, and not used in the case of a born human. this is just a long series of begging the question.
There is one major exception. Dr. Singer continues to argue that it is not biology that makes us human, it is that we are embodied minds that make us human beings. He argues that this occurs somewhere in early childhood and as such would allow infanticide.
IF ONE BELIEVES NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS THAT A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON BECAUSE A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON - STOP HERE
FUTURE OF VALUE ARGUMENT (FOVA)
Despite the unsupported dismissals of the argument on the board. This argument is regarded almost universally by academics and serious critics both pro choice and pro life as the best argument about the morality of abortion. it is, because it is based on things that almost all believe are intuitively true, or on pure biological fact.
we do intuitively believe it is wrong to unjustly kill people like you and me
we do intuitively believe we will exist in the future and we value it. ( I have dinner reservations for next week - and keep a calendar)
It is a fact that some number of days after the process of conception there does exist a unique human organism
and it is a fact that if you leave it alone - it will exist in the future as only one thing a human like us.
this argument hinges on the concept of "Ideal desire" that it is reasonable to assume that those, who due to some handicap or circumstance are unable to overtly express their desire, would desire things that would be best for them.
The argument against this is that one must have at least some minor level of cognitive ability to be considered as meriting the concept of "ideal desire"
IF YOU BELIEVE THE CONCEPT OF IDEAL DESIRE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FETUS - STOP HERE
RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE MOTHERS BODY
Even if you believe that the fetus is a moral actor, that by itself does not de facto give it a right
to the use of the mothers body. The mother possesses bodily autonomy and she can decide to let the fetus use it, or not.
This argument hinges on the concept of implied consent. Does having sex as an act of free will with a known possible outcome being a fetus with moral standing that has a unique need for the use of your body establish an implied consent
IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO IMPLIED CONSENT - STOP HERE
That is really basically where the world is in the argument
NONE OF WHICH HAS MUCH OF ANYTHING AT ALL WITH IF ABORTION SHOULD OR
SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL.
IOW, the parties on each side aren't most fundamentally motivated by logic. If that was true, we could expect resolution in the form of one side coming to its senses. The divide is in the realm of norms and experience. Do you agree with that?
It's the "says you" defense. I say abortion is wrong and you say "says you," and I say sure, and because I say it, it is so for me but not for you, and then we just sort of end things there.Quoting S
There are actually variations throughout the whole spectrum of opinions. A small minority find murder of children moral. Infanticide is practiced in some cultures. Are you committed to infanticide being moral for me if I say it is?Quoting S
You don't think anything goes for you, but I don't see upon what basis you can force me to adhere to your moral standards unless you think there's something inherently correct about them and that's it not just a matter of personal preference.
But it makes no difference whatsoever in a philosophical discussion on the permissibly of abortion
Quoting frank
and both sides, making good, logical, reason based arguments are waiting for the other to realize it.
Are you suggesting that life might begin before it is conceived? Or after?
“Life begins at conception” is a truism, you numpty. It’s just to say it begins when it is begun, and it begins once an egg cell has been fertilised.
I have not abandoned the argument - i have made the argument - i am abandoning re-statement after restatement after restatement of the argument - after yet one more completely unsupported objection that to date has had nothing at all to do with the propositions or the conclusions. Which is a waste of time.
I don't feel like sharing, by far the most highly regarded, most published and most used pro life argument that many on the site were un-aware of - was a waste of time.
the argument is there - agree - disagree is a personal choice.
Settle down. I’m not outraged, I’m amused at your blunder. Read my response again, I’ve answered your objection.
If there were moral facts and rules nature breaks them all.
We don't have to end things there. We could further discuss our respective views.
Quoting Hanover
What does it mean to be committed to infanticide being moral for you if you say it is? You can think or say whatever you want, but I don't share the view that infanticide is moral.
Quoting Hanover
I can't force you either way. I can only tell you why I judge the matter as I do and try to convince of why you should adhere to my moral standards.
All in all, your response seems to amount to what I think is the mistaken belief that just because I don't accept that morality is objective, then discussion between us can't progress. But I don't think that you've successfully made that case.
Well no, because as I’ve said previously in this thread, a sperm is not a human being and neither is an egg cell. Once an egg cell is fertilised a human life is conceived, by which I mean something that, if not interrupted, will become a fully developed human being. This is not the case with a sperm or an egg cell; the human embryo is precisely that, an embryonic human being.
Perhaps you should quote me the remark you’re referring to.
I am not interested in the abortion debate per se, but are there not facts in criminal cases and laws broken? It seems that that is analogous to moral laws and facts. Personally, I believe there are at least some moral truths, including that genocide is morally wrong. Act according to that maxim that you could will it to be a universal law. It seems the categorical imperative is a good guiding principle, in my opinion, and it conveys at least some moral truths. However, I differ from Kant in that context needs to be taken into account. For example, always lie to the murderer at the door.
against all the arguments I have made, with propositions and conclusions the counter arguments have been
Banno - a fetus is not a person, because it is not a person because, because of his CA argument which he is not supporting just putting it out there. - the fact that I have not made one argument based on personhood has escaped him for 6 pages. So not one of his objections on this thread has anything at all to do with my argument - which he dismisses as bad, without cause and ignores. Which it seems is a rather normal tactic.
he also occasionally make some reference to "what about the woman, which again i fully addressed - and he has so far ignored.
You on the other hand, have at least 3 times dismissed the FVOL argument on structure. such as this :
Dismissed because unargued and unsupported, merely assumed and asserted. It seems pretty clear that you can rant, but you can't argue - likely do not even understand what argument is. The FOVA depends on assuming what is in question - and that's not argument. The mistake is begging the question. I call it ranting
I have asked on each instance, and do again on the latest version, what specific part of the argument you are talking about in your dismissal, so I could possibly formulate a reply - i have yet to receive one.
Also - as I have pointed out, your first set of objections were addressed specifically in the argument - and as recently as yesterday - i gave you the best argument AGAINST the FVOL argument - whereby you took the 3 items AGAINST it and argued them back as if I was making an argument for. This with other items has lead me to believe you barely read, and if you do, do not even take the briefest of moments to understand the posts i have directed at you. You are writing you argument back in your head before you have reached the second word.
Every point you have raised to me on the issue has amounted to nothing more than an unsupported pronouncement, with a chaser of a personal barb.
Address the premises or the conclusion of the FVOL directly and with support of your counter opinion and I will address -
Address the premises or the conclusion of the use of the woman's body argument and support your counter opinion and I will address
However all future unsupported pronouncements will be regarded as one more opinion and ignored.
Why on earth would I be referring to all human cellular life there, as opposed to the life of a new human being? You’re being a pedant.
If you take a child to be the offspring of parents then of course it’s a child in there, right from the very start.
Where do these moral truths come from and what do they consist of?
They bible is not a good source because it is contradictory along with other problems
If genocide is "wrong" then how come nature freely allows it? I think unfortunately unless we can find some rule book outside of nature then what nature allow nature allows. You can't break the laws of nature.
I would like someone on here to come out and admit to being religious and try and defend the bibles morality and these two quotes that I put in a previous thread.
.................
"But most fortunate of all are those who are not yet born. For they have not seen all the evil that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 6:3
"A man may father a hundred children and live for many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he is unsatisfied with his prosperity and does not even receive a proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he." Ecclesiastes 6:3
The categorical imperative comes from the power of reason. Why are you bringing the Bible up with me? It’s a Kantian argument, not a religious one.
I am bringing the bible up in the context of these debates and asking whether or not people that are opposed to abortion have a hidden religious motive beyond their allegedly "rational" arguments.
I said "I would like someone(..)" I didn't say you in particular. I just attached the comment to your post for convenience.
I see no evidence reason leads to morality and you can't derive an ought from an is.
And if reason did lead to a morality it is not clear who's position that morality would favour. At the least however you can point out flaws in peoples argumentation though and common fallacies such as appeal to emotion, shifting the goal post etc.
I see the problem - you were out of philosophy class the day they taught philosophy ( love movie quotes don't you)
One does not argue or support ones premises they are:
"A premise or premiss[a] is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words, a premise is an assumption that something is true"
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "ASSUMPTION"
The person making the argument ( marquis ) in this case declares the premise, which by definition he proposes is true. Than based on these things he believes are true he make a conclusion. This is not begging the question, this is argument.
It is incumbent on those who believe his premises or conclusions are false ( you for instance ) to say they are and why - I have been waiting.
in your example
Quoting tim wood
I dispute your proposition the the sky is full of purple flying unicorns because it is not. - Argument over.
Can't believe that is your issue. Amazed.
Alright, why is murdering infants wrong other to you?
I think if there were "ought's" that would be problematic. For example should we give all excess wealth that we have away to save starving children? Should we rescue as many animals as possible from natural harm?
It could be argued like Peter Singer does on an ought's framework we would be compelled to do a lot more than we do currently and sacrifice a lot more. And then the following argument is that, that puts an impossible burden on us.
Also if morality involves choice then we can't simply be compelled to do something it would seem, and retain freewill.
I think one thing you can objectively say about genocide is that it is extremely harmful and causes massive suffering. That really should be an incentive not to do it but yet humans have done it unfortunately.
I am not convinced abortion causes any suffering to the aborted child mainly because we have no memory of being in the womb or suffering the womb or having desires in the womb etc.
I don't think abortion is right or wrong. I don't think it is ideal or great for sure.
I think it is the lesser of two evils. But I don't accept most premises made by anti-abortionists
Mate, you’re just being a pedant. I could be referring either to all cellular life in the human body, or in particular to a new human being there, and there is no reason why it should be the former; remember this thread is about abortion. But look, if that’s the straw you want, then grasp away.
My argument in this thread has simply been this: If we’re going to value the lives of our fellow human beings at all, then we must do so from the beginning. Otherwise people, when it suits them, will come up with arbitrary reasons we’re allowed to end life, as they do.
That's pretty funny. As if merely willing something makes it so. That's a one way ticket to absurdity.
I was never the only person who judges it to be wrong, so it was never wrong only for me. There were always others. And you're one of them, surely. So why do I need to convince you?
It is quite possible to have an abortion and value human life and not harm anyone else other than the fetus. Life is a lot more nuanced than you seem to think.
Most people are contradictory when it comes to the valuing human life and what this means and having arbitrary concepts and actions. There is profound inequality across society because people do not value all humans equally. This situation was even worse (see slavery and racism and sexism) before abortion became widespread.
There is nothing arbitrary when someone gives a specific reason for having an abortion. And there is nothing arbitrary about labeling the ,multitude of stages in human development differently.
If you worked in a hospital you would not get away with answering every question with "it is a child". to technical question about what entity is being examined or treated.
agree - now that person says they are not true because . . . . .
Quoting tim wood
and again - you are not compelled to believe anything - if you believe them untrue - you say they are untrue because .......
Quoting tim wood
I have already told you, I dispute the claim - because I just looked up and it is not - await your rebuttal
You do understand that this is the process of argument don't you ??
Anyone can make up rules.
Well look, from my end it feels like I’m explaining the obvious all the time and no one ever gets it. And I don’t know what you’re asking about a contract.
I’m saying a human being’s life starts at its conception, and that it should be valued and not ended simply because it is unwanted. I see that as an undesirable “freedom” to have in a society. I take it as a particularly nasty manifestation of selfism, and a society where people behave less selfishly, it seems to me, is a better one.
"A premise or premiss[a] is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion.[3] In other words, a premise is an assumption that something is true."
"A premise is a proposition one offers in support of a conclusion. That is, one offers a premise as evidence for the truth of the conclusion, as justification for or a reason to believe the conclusion."
" a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference
specifically : either of the first two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn"
now back to me -
Premises are propositions put forth as true in support of an argument. The person making the argument says these things are true and support the conclusion.
If someone thinks they are false, or do not support the conclusion they say so and why.
A human beings life starts at the big bang by your reasoning.
Conception is necessary for human life but that does not make it sufficient.
No it doesn’t.
Irrelevant to my case.
I’m about done with this argument now, so may just stop replying.
You are claiming that a stage of existence necessary to be human entails being human.
Therefore any stage of causality required for creating humans is necessary to being human.
Sure, I’m just going to leave you to your thoughts now. I’m out.
This is non-responsive.
The question was asked so that you could provide your basis so that I would know what you relied upon to determine that infanticide was murder. Whatever principles you rely upon should be usable to determine the outcome of unclear cases. This, of course, assumes your principles are logical and not simply emotive, but if they are emotive, then I'd have expected you to say that in response to the question I posed, as opposed to simply posing another question of your own.
Here is the premise that I will break down into part
Any discussion on abortion needs to start with some theoretical account of the wrongness of killing.
I would imagine most on here would have no issue with the assertion it is morally impermissible to, without justification, kill adult human beings like us.
Assume you are ok so far.
But why is it wrong to kill people like us? While we may want to suggest it is the loss others would experience due to our absence. But if that was all it was, it would allow the killing of hermits, or those who lead otherwise independent or friendless lives.
I left out the part about the harm to the killer, this is just to isolate the harm done in killing to the person killed
A better answer would be the primary wrong done by the killing is the harm it does to the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer.
Hope we still ok here
However is it simply the change in a biological state that make killing wrong? That seems insufficient.
Here is the definition you are asking for-
The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.
Now to yours
Quoting tim wood
I do not see how any of that has to do with the premise above, can you explain the relationship to the premise please
Quoting tim wood
Financially? I am not getting the point you are trying to make here either. Not trying to be difficult but am really not understanding your point yet.
Quoting tim wood
Yes that is correct, and think that is exactly what the premise says. Do you agree?
Quoting tim wood
I think I addressed this point, that I believe you are making by saying un justified killing, and asking for some forbearance in not having to argue the nature of justified
Quoting tim wood
In the argument marquis does allow for euthanasia for people with no future, such as those in permanent vegetative states etc.
As for bad futures, in you counter argument here you say "us from killing ". That would mean someone other than the individual in question is making the judgment about the nature the victims future. I would say the determination of that should be left to that individual. Also, since the overwhelming amount of human beings in the world to not commit suicide, even those living in awful situations, and of the sad number of those that do, almost all would be attributed to some type of serious mental incapacity. It would be a more than fair statement that given the choice between death and their future, for all practical purposes all sane people chose their future.
Quoting tim wood
That is exactly the point marquis makes. The change in biological state from alive to dead is not enough, What the victim really loses is his future. Not sure how it could be clearer. You are alive, you value your future, as evidenced by you make plans, you look forward to things to come, you are not hanging yourself. I kill you. You have been denied your future. If the point you are making is that at that point you would not know or care, ok. But than you can extend that point to all murder, and say murder is not wrong, because now the victim doesn't know or care anymore
Quoting tim wood
And there is the barb chaser. Your opinion is noted.
It is sometimes fair to question why a question is being asked or why it is worded in such a way, and that's what I thought in this case upon analysis of your question. I chose to await your reply before responding in the way that you wanted me to. I expected you to have understood that.
The basis is certainly emotive. The basis is emotive in every genuine case. If someone disagrees that the basis is emotive, then I find it more plausible that they just don't realise this than that it's not emotive for them. If the judgement doesn't stem from emotion, then I cannot make sense of it. Infanticide is appalling and detestable.
What unclear cases could there be? Can you give an example? Are principles which are usable to determine the outcome of unclear cases what makes a basis logical in your view? To me, if you need some sort of abstract principle to determine what's wrong about infanticide, then that's a big problem for you, because it should just come to you emotionally straight away with something like infanticide. That's how it is with almost everyone else.
Which do you think is more important:
The right to live (fetus) or the ''freedom'' to have an abortion?
I think abortion devalues human life if it's unleashed in all its forms, meaning permitted under any and all circumstances. Women will not opt for a safer and more ethical alternative like abstinence or contraception.
I'm not saying abortion should be banned but it needs to be monitored and regulated for the benefit of women themselves.
Hm. Yes, men need to make sure women use abortion only when appropriate. :down:
Women will lose a little bit of their humanity if we make abortion completely free. Don't you think? To say abortion is a choice that can be exercised freely is tantamount to saying the fetus is nothing and dispensable.
There are women who want children. They value life and its origins in the fetus. According to you they must be sick in some way.
Talk about putting words in someone else's mouth!
Yes, the "absolute freedom" position is an extremist position. It should be rightly rejected.
Quoting TheMadFool
Maybe not sick, but it would seem to force him into disingenuously refusing to recognise a wide spread valuation or treat it as empty and baseless.
Quoting S
:razz:
Quoting Banno
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Banno
Quoting Hanover
My position (which appears to be similar in ways to Rank Amateur's, albeit without a needlessly long and complicated argument) avoids the problems with your positions. Why isn't it better?
Instead of a judgement based on a precise delineation, which I agree isn't possible, you two make a judgement based on rough categories. Yet some of the key concerns people have, some of the key moral dilemmas people face, about abortion apply outside of your rough category. That's a problem for you, isn't it? Would you just dismiss a person's concerns because it falls outside of your rough category? It's simply not a moral dilemma? They're not thinking about it rightly? That doesn't seem right, and it doesn't seem very ethical to me. It seems callous and misguided.
It's not a problem for me, because my answer is that their concerns relating to the "thing" should be guided by what is judged to be of value, irrespective of categorisation of the "thing".
Your point (suffering children) is relevant to abortion only to the extent that a child born because abortion is illegal will suffer. Is this always the case? I don't think so.
I could counter you with...
[I]Black swans! Black swans! Black swans![/I]
But what about all of these [i]white[/I]--
No! Shut up and look at these [i]black swans[/I]! We should drive [i]all[/I] swans to extinction, because [i]black swans[/I]!
The first premise of the argument has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fetus. The reason we need agreement that it is immoral to kill people like you and me first, because there is no logic in arguing the immorality of killing a fetus if you don't think it is immoral to kill a born human
This is just one more in now a long line of you not taking the time to understand, even a very simple point before commenting on it.
Quoting tim wood
Again see my point above, again with out any understanding of the argument being made you pick a group of words, out of context and the logic of argument- and go off on a meaningless tangent completely outside the logic of the argument
Quoting tim wood
If the point is, since there is no more harm that can be done to the dead person, than there is no harm left so the harm of killing ends at the moment of death. That is basically the FOVA. What did the victim lose at that moment? His past? His future memory of it, but his past is still there. Or is your point it is pure biology? Killing is wrong because it kills? The argument is one major harm of killing is the loss of all the things in ones future. I do not understand how your point changes that
Quoting tim wood
I have no clue still what you want me to calculate, it seems you are trying in some way to conflate the financial idea of future value into the use here and want me to discount back to some NPV. The argument does not do this and has no need to.
It rests on the point that no matter how much you want to parse it, we alive born human beings in a sane state of mind with almost no exception value our future. We make plans, we save money, we dream and hope about what is to come, we look forward to seeing our children grow, to see their children.... do you not value your future?
Quoting tim wood
You have severe reading comprehension issues. I was assuming we all know there are types of justified killing- I was hoping we would not have to argue them all in this thread
I take your subjective emotive position as primitive and undeveloped and rife with problems because it doesn't offer a reason (as it's emotive) for me to accept your position. If you like murder and ice cream, but I don't, I don't know how you're going to convince me of either. We're just dealing with preference under your theory.
I'm not denying an immediate intuitive reaction people have when faced with moral issues, like feeling repulsed by murder. This is not an entirely rational reaction I'll admit, but it's not entirely emotive. There are good reasons, after all, for believing murder wrong, as in it would destroy society. Matters of conscience are more complicated than just emotive preference for things, like ice cream.
I called your position primitive because I do agree that we start with these intuitive reactions to situations, but we then derive principles for deciphering the morality of hard cases. Utilitarianism and Kantianism are two efforts of providing such principles. I think we all agree that few if any actually keep the categorical imperative in their head at all times and use it to decide right from wrong, but that's not to say it might not describe the process many undertake intuitively.
We also have to admit that some often feel emotional repulsion to things that they morally ought not feel such repulsion for (e.g. homosexuality, mixed race marriages) and we must admit that some feel a lack of emotional repulsion when they morally ought to (e.g. child molesters, serial killers). The idea that we can logically convince the morally misguided to change their emotional preference makes as much sense as logically convincing someone to like ice cream who doesn't. We do, though, change people's minds when it comes to moral questions, which means something more is at play than simply emotional reaction.
In the examples I gave of people having an inappropriate moral compass, all have a certain underlying principle that is being violated. Namely, each shows a lack of respect for autonomy and deprives people of the power of their own decision making. This principle that drives much of moral theory must therefore be applied consistently throughout other moral decisions. So, for example, if I find homosexuality abhorrent, my mind could be changed by pointing out that my moral rejection requires that I ignore the moral principle of affording people the same autonomy I insist upon providing people in all other situations. Assuming I'm reasonable, I then will reconsider and then take a permissive view on homosexuality, perhaps while even maintaining my emotional repulsion to it. It is the logic, not the emotion, then that drives the final decision.
So, back to abortion. If we accept that we must protect individual autonomy at a certain level in order to be moral people, we then must figure out who has the right to this protection. We generally say that people do, and for reason, we must decide who is a person. The fetus is a hard case because it tests our ability to offer a fine tuned definition, but find a definition we must. Throwing our arms up (ala @Banno) to the notion of definitions is too easy. We all know the limitations of definitions and we all know the problems of essentialism, but just because we can't figure out an exact and always accurate definition of a cup doesn't suggest we don't know when we have a cup and when we do. My response then is as it was, which is that we have to offer a definition of "person" that liberally protects things that might not entirely be people, simply because the destruction of something that might be a person is so morally wrong.
We change minds by means of logical arguments? I think emotional appeals are our primary means. I'm just at a loss to think of a case where minds were changed via logic. Could you give an example?
Are you saying the soldier does not value his future? No matter how uncertain it may be, if so make the case. But there is a sort of good point here, one can value something more than ones future, but that does not mean they dont value it at all
In the interest of time and space.
Do you think it is true or not true that people value their future, if not true why?
However, while still the important concept legally, in most current academic treatment now about the ethics and morality if not admit, grant for sake of the argument the personhood to the unborn at a very early stage of development.
The core issue is, is it biology or something else that makes us a moral actor? If biology the the answer is easy. If something else, what. And all criteria expect one fails on begging the question.
Entity A is not a person because it does not have characteristic X
However characteristic X is in entity B and entity B is a person
Then they modify characteristic X so it only applies to entity A
Leaving the logic to entity A is not a person because entity A is not a person
The exception is the embodied mind argument that our personhood has nothing at all to do with biology. We do not exist as persons until we are an embodied mind. Most often agreed to be sometime in early childhood. This argument is logical and persuasive, the only major issue is it allows infanticide, which as to your whole point above people generally reject.
:groan:
Quoting Hanover
Well, if it turns out not to be, then I'll think up a suitable punishment for you.
Quoting Hanover
I think that it [i]can[/I] offer a reason, and that having an emotive basis [i]wouldn't[/I] prevent someone in that position from doing so. I like ice cream because it tastes yummy, and I'm not all that bothered if you don't like the taste of it, because that's ludicrously unimportant in comparison to how we feel about murder. I abhor murder because it feels very wrong to me. If you have a similar enough emotional foundation to me, then we have something to work with. If you weren't understanding why it should feel wrong, then I would appeal to your emotions and your capacity to reason about them. I could bring up various hypothetical scenarios involving murder and urge you to empathise with the victims.
Quoting Hanover
These good reasons you mention are irrelevant or at least secondary when it comes down to the act of moral judgement for the typical moral agent. Your way of judging morality is a more mechanical way. I'm not a robot, and robot-like decision-making or behaviour is unsuited to ethics. Even if it didn't lead to the destruction of society, I would still judge that murder is wrong. That would be a nightmarish society, not a morally acceptable one. The reason that murder is typically judged to be wrong in the first place has nothing to do with wide-scale considerations about society, it's judged to be immoral because it goes against your conscience, and your conscience is guided by emotions, like the feeling of guilt.
I'm not going to disagree that matters of the conscience are more complicated than matters of what foodstuffs you like. My position is that they're two obviously different things anyway, and that your comparison is highly inappropriate and misleading. I don't judge whether murder is right or wrong through my taste buds. It's not really about complexity, it's about severity. I wouldn't judge you to be the scum of the earth if you didn't like the taste of ice cream!
Quoting Hanover
But I don't need utilitarianism or Kantianism to "decipher" the morality of "hard" cases. Even if I happen to use such a framework here and there on a given ethical topic, it would merely be an expansion of my initial moral judgement. I wouldn't robotically adopt an ethical conclusion from any given formula if it did not sit well with me. I would reject it or at least think that I would need to investigate why there's a mismatch.
Quoting Hanover
Yes.
Quoting Hanover
The exceptions are like those who just don't like the taste of ice cream and never will, because they're incapable. Maybe they lack the capacity to taste. Everyone else is capable of coming around, and that's because they have that emotional foundation and intellectual ability to draw the right type of connections. Not only is it possible to appeal to the capable on such a basis, in some cases it succeeds. Think of young children, for example. They're very emotional, and can be very selfish, but you have to get them to empathise with the feelings of others in order to get them to see why it's wrong to be very selfish.
Quoting Hanover
To talk of principles is to talk of the surface layer, so it's not a deep analysis. Principles are guided by emotion. Homophobic principles are based on homophobic feeling. To counter that, you could try to get them to empathise with homosexuals. If the exercise in empathy is successful, then they will have overridden their formerly dominant feelings and gained new dominant feelings on the matter which allow them to reach a different judgement. But they'd have to put some effort into being open enough to begin with.
Quoting Hanover
The way I see it, I'm leading the race, followed by you, with Banno in his old banger trailing [i]way[/I] behind in the distance, eating our dust with his mystical criteria which somehow manage to successfully rule out the counterexamples which have been raised against him. :smirk:
You suffer from similar problems as Banno, but you're driving a better car. Still, mine is of a different class which outperforms you both. :sparkle:
Anyway, getting back on track, any thoughts I might have about protecting individual autonomy ultimately stem from emotion. But note that I've never said anything about my moral judgements being a matter of raw, mindless, unrestrained emotion. I say that people should have the right to certain protections, but, more relevant to my position on abortion, I say that if a "thing" is of value, then a "thing" is of value, and it doesn't and shouldn't matter whether or not this "thing" counts as a person. If a "thing" is of value, then that's a basis to guide our actions in respect of it. I think that going down the route of "fine tuning" a definition is completely the wrong approach; understandable, but the wrong approach nevertheless. If it were a legal matter, then maybe that approach would be better suited, but as a matter of aesthetics or morality, it is not the best way to approach the topic of abortion.
As I argued previously:
Quoting S
I don't think that you've overcome this argument. Not by a long shot.
The problem I see is for women themselves, not for anyone else. Abortion is in a gray moral zone and if I'm correct when unsure we should be cautious for fear that we may do something wrong. In this case the danger is even greater because this is about possible murder.
If abortion is allowed as a simple unqualified choice then how would you distinguish it from whim and fancy? Are women willing to become so free on abortion that they'll ignore the, even if slim, chance that they could be committing murder?
I don't think so. Women are sensible and won't ever commit to unrestricted abortions. If they do despite my objections then it means they don't understand my point.
Different ethical strokes for different ethical folks?
I see the inverse. :D
As far as I can tell you're saying that the fetus has value. Ok, so what? I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on that. The disagreement was over whether the value of the fetus is equal to the value of a person's autonomy, and I would agree that a person's autonomy has greater value than a fetus.
Many things have value, but we arrange these values into hierarchies or attempt to balance them when they are in conflict. And what both @Banno and @Hanover have done is attempt to provide some way of reasoning through that balance between conflicting values. But I'm not sure where you have done so.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I pretty much thing it is morally permissible to get an abortion at any time prior to birth. My general argument mirror's @Hanover, but my rough criteria make the line of personhood further along in development.
What doesn't make sense is if someone opposes abortion but does not help suffering children.
If someone thinks abortion is wrong then why would they not think all suffering of children is wrong and take action?
As the saying goes actions speak louder than words. So children are not being brought into a fair world where they can be guaranteed a good outcome and that is not just something created by humans but inherent in nature.
If abortion is illegal people will either try and abort the child themselves, or have backstreet abortion or abandon the child at birth which increases the ,Likelihood of it having a poor quality of life.
The reason I posted that video is to illustrate that there are children suffering appallingly with no opportunities and yet people want more children born that are unwanted that could be aborted painlessly before they have left the womb and experienced life fully.
I am not desperate for people to have abortions but I think it is the route of least suffering.
Talking about what other people are disagreeing over isn't necessarily relevant to my position and what I've ended up disagreeing with. You'll have to actually go into what I've said, who I've disagreed with, over what, and why.
The one and the other don't have to be of equal value. The fetus just has to be valuable enough to prioritise alternatives to abortion in at least some cases, such as giving birth and keeping the baby, or giving birth and handing over control to social services. I'm all for discouragement of the less advisable route and encouragement of better options. And I never endorsed intervention except in exceptional circumstances, and intervention doesn't necessarily mean strapping the mother down, completely taking away her freedom, and forcing her to give birth. I certainly wouldn't be in favour of that kind of extreme intervention. Intervention can take many forms. I'm talking about [i]some form[/I] of intervention in the case of red flags, like grossly irresponsible behaviour.
I raised the problem from the start about the ambiguity in "control", and there's ambiguity in "freedom", too. We would need to break these concepts down. But no one replied to my original comment and everyone else carried on regardless.
Quoting Moliere
Yes, I don't disagree.
Quoting Moliere
I've been arguing that the outcome should be determined based on a valuation which allows for greater subjectivity than basing it on whether the fetus counts as a person, and then arguing over what criteria to go by. That depersonalises the situation, and makes it about rule following. But it's a very personal situation, and should account for feelings, values, desires, and the like.
Quoting Moliere
It's not my view that it is morally acceptable to get an abortion for any reason whatsoever, no matter how irresponsible the reason, and the legislation here in the UK doesn't legally permit that.
Out of the two of us, it seems to me that you're the one who is confused. You should have just asked me to clarify my meaning if you weren't sure. By "absolute freedom" in that context, I meant the position whereby it's judged to be morally acceptable for someone to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever. "It's her body, she can do what she wants with it". This is indeed what some people believe, even on this very forum, as I recall from a previous discussion. And it is as I described: a form of extremism. It's radical far-left thinking which I reject.
The entire concept is, how it is an important way someone is harmed, when their life is prematurely ended is the loss of all that they could or would have done and seen and been if they had not been killed. I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept.
I was using that mostly as a segue to talk about what I believe your position to be. If you want me to go through your posts and comment individually I will, but it seems like an odd request right off the bat when you could just correct my understanding.
But if you want I will. Just say so.
Quoting S
Alright, fair enough. Then you consider the fact that the fetus can become a human to have enough value to warrant some sort of moral stop on abortion at some point.
But, why? Is it just a brute value for you?
See, to me this seems to be less about the value of the fetus, then, and more about the moral worth of the parent's actions in relation to the fetus. So if someone is irresponsibly pregnant then the fetus has more value than the woman's right to choose, whereas if someone is responsibly pregnant then the fetus has less value than the woman's right to choose, perhaps where the fetus is on a sliding scale of value of some sort depending on development and emotional commitment.
Is that a right or wrong way of interpreting you?
I guess my value is mostly with respect to a person. The woman is a person, which means they have moral autonomy -- they are the one's who weigh and deliberate in their own personal circumstances about what is right and what is wrong, because no one is better suited to the task than the person who is weighing that decision.
Would the choice effect some other person then the sort of infinite value I assign to person's would require some other means of deliberation -- but I really, honestly do not view the fetus as a person in the least. Value, I grant -- but not anything in relation to the value of a person.
Quoting S
Cool. At least one point of agreement then :D.Quoting S
I agree with your conclusion, but not how you get there. I don't think there's an opposition to be had between our emotive and cognitive capacities -- when it comes to judgment they work in tandem, and answering moral questions requires judgment.
Rules are proposed just because they give cognitive content that we can consider. Of course in so considering them we use our emotions, it's just easier to share linguistic expressions -- rules -- than it is to share our base emotions when we are in disagreement (clearly if we are in agreement this isn't as hard!)
Quoting S
Well, that draws the lines then. :D
Do you acknowledge a difference between morally righteous, morally permissive , and morally repugnant? I don't care about what words are used so much, but I do think there is a middle category between good and evil -- and I tend to think a great deal of our actions fall into that middle category, and abortion is one of those. (EDIT: I should add a fourth category, that of the non-moral, where many actions fall -- but it seemed a bit off course)
The example above, is about a born human, take out their, and put in you.
I am still on premise one. It is wrong to kill Tim wood( people like us), and an important reason it is wrong is it deprives tim wood of the life you would have had (the future) if you were not killed.
Here is the problem with personhood, in moral/ethical arguments -
The core issue is, is it biology or something else that makes us a moral actor? If biology, the answer is easy. If something else, what. And all criteria expect one fails on begging the question.
Entity A is not a person because it does not have characteristic X
However characteristic X is in entity B and entity B is a person
Then they modify characteristic X so it only applies to entity A
Leaving the logic: entity A is not a person because entity A is not a person
The exception is the embodied mind argument that our personhood has nothing at all to do with biology. We do not exist as persons until we are an embodied mind. Most often agreed to be sometime in early childhood. This argument is logical and persuasive, the only major issue is it allows infanticide, which as to your whole point above people generally reject.
Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral, and an important part of what makes it immoral is it deprives them of their future.
We good on this ?
P2. From a very early point in a pregnancy there is a unique human organism.
After the process of conception is completed there exists a new zygote cell. This cell has a unique genetic makeup. This zygote is an embryonic stem cell with the ability to generate every organ in the body. For the next 2 weeks or so, or until it is at the 16 cell stage it has the ability to split and twin. After this time, there exists a unique human organism, and this organism can only develop into a human.
All this says is that we ought not kill people whom we ought not kill.
Better to say that we ought not kill people because it deprives them of their future.
Here is the last pared down version of P1.
Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral, and an important part of what makes it immoral is it deprives them of their future.
And here is the original full one
P1. One definition of murder is the loss of one’s future of value
Any discussion on abortion needs to start with some theoretical account of the wrongness of killing. I would imagine most on here would have no issue with the assertion it is morally impermissible to, without justification, kill adult human beings like us.
But why is it wrong to kill people like us? While we may want to suggest it is the loss others would experience due to our absence. But if that was all it was, it would allow the killing of hermits, or those who lead otherwise independent or friendless lives.
A better answer would be the primary wrong done by the killing is the harm it does to the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. However is it simply the change in a biological state that make killing wrong? That seems insufficient.
The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.
But I will go along with "depriving a person of their future is wrong". So the point might be moot.
If I might involve myself in this conversation, I would ask for one thing: consistency in the use of words.
Human, human being, and person are three distinct things.
Your blood is human, but not a human being. They are distinct.
A human being is an organism. This is a biological term. A person has moral standing. This is an ethical term.
Would you go along with this?
P3. All adult humans undergo the same process of development
Currently, there is no other way to become an adult human being, than to start as a human ovam, and a human sperm, to undergo the process of conception and fertilization and the various stages of embryonic development leading to a birth of some type.
We ok with this
ha
Quoting Rank Amateur
Technically, in the argument a about 2 weeks after the process of conception, after twinning is no longer possible, but close enough
Last Friday is your past today, it was your future on Thursday
P5: past precedes future.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Ehhhh... i don't think I agree with your logic here. But let's put that aside, because I think it would be a waste of time since I likely fall into your category of embodied minds.
The thing I tend to think of that really makes a person unique is that they have a body of their own, they have a mind of their own, they have social relationships, and they have a history. It's the history criteria that I think distinguishes between, say, a person in a coma and a fetus. And the fetus' body is contiguous with the mothers prior to birth so as far as I'm concerned drawing the line at birth is laying the line down on the safe side of things.
At least after birth we can say that there is a child with a body of their own, even if they don't have a mind just yet.
But, yeh, I don't think that personhood is strictly biological so I'd probably fall into the embodied mind camp, as you phrase it. It's an ethical category.
The thought experiment doesn't address the primary notion I highlighted which is the history of a person -- people have a history. The ship of Theseus is the ship of Theseus because of its history, not because of the specific boards that make up the ship -- though without any such boards the ship of Theseus would be no more.
P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it as in P1.
One is in possession of one’s biological future whether or not one is aware of it or not. One is possession of ones one’s future of value even if one ( in most cases) does not desire it. As an example there can be a seriously depressed person, who do to the nature of their illness wishes to kill themselves and have no desire for their future. I would argue that it is not morally permissible to allow them to kill themselves because their judgement that their future is without value is handicapped by their illness. The concept of “ideal desire” would apply, and our judgement on the moral permissibly of them killing themselves should be based on what their ideal desire would be if their handicap was not there, and we would assume absent their depression they, like us would desire their future. In the second instance assume there was a person is a catatonic state, but with the real prospect of regaining conciseness, we could not say, that since this person is unaware of their future at that time, they are not in possession of it, the concept of ideal judgement would apply, and we should assume that if they were conscience they would be aware of their future and we should not let the handicap of the catatonic state deny them of their right to it. I argue that the same concept of “ideal desire” applies in the case of the fetus, and their handicap of the state of their development is not philosophically different then the prior 2 examples and we should assume that absent this handicap they would be aware, and desire their future of value as we do.
On your other point, you are just taking a characteristic, and modifying it so it it can't apply where you don't want it to. Which is fine as an opinion as you expressed it. But it is not an argument
It's not an argument for personhood, but it doesn't fall to your criticism either.
Gotta think on that.
Yeah. You used "human organisms". What is that, if not a human being? Why this forth term?
And you've slipped from an organism to a person in P7.
"Awareness" is not necessary for a human organism, but is for a person. Same for "desire".
A philosophical zombie would be a human organism, but have neither awareness nor desire.
And... interesting that you begin here to introduce capacities: the capacity for awareness and the capacity for desire.
SO here is were our differences begin.
The argument goes, the lack of awareness and/or desire due to the stage of development does not impact its ideal desire. The concept of ideal desire would say, without this handicap of its stage of development, what would it desire. As the examples in the premise.
Yeah, nuh. If something is not aware, how can it have a desire? And that would stand regardless of stage of development.
Again, a human being does not per se have moral standing. A person does.
You are trying to get an ought from an is. Now I think that it is possible to do so, but I think you have not shown your case yet.
But it wouldn't. It would be dead.
The concept of ideal desire goes, as in the premise, You banno, are in an accident, you are completely unconscious, and are in need of life support. I ask you, do you desire life support, but you don't answer. Should I assume you have no desire because you are not aware? The concept of ideal desire would say we should assume you would desire life support if not handicapped by the injury. I am extending the same concept to the organism.
There are pretty obvious differences between a blastocyst and an unconscious person. I think this has been pointed out by various others. Your metaphor stretches too far.
One does not cease to be a person when one sleeps. We agree to that. But it does not follow that everything that is unconscious is a person. Some persons are unconscious. All you can conclude is that being unconscious does not rule out a foetus being a person.
But lots of other things do.
It could be anything, long short but if left alone it would have its unique future.
Being dead is not that unique.
No, we are having difficulty with agreeing on P7.
She has to come in somewhere. This seems the obvious place.
Thought I just addressed that here,
Quoting Rank Amateur
So for now, the point will be moot. This is a place were you and I differ.
I can't agree that the woman's body is not an essential part of P7.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Alright. Marking this as a point of disagreement, let's move on.
Conclusion
If P1 and one definition of murder is the loss of ones future of value and if P6 Shortly after the process of conception is complete, and very early in human development there is a unique human organism with a unique human future, and if P7 their awareness or desire for this future is not a condition of their possession of this future, taking of this human future of value is murder, and immoral.
Exceptions
This argument holds for most cases, but not for all. If it can be shown that that there is not a future of value, say thorough embryonic DNA testing that there are sever issues this argument would allow such abortions. Since the argument hinges on there being a unique human organism and there can be a sound biological argument that one does not exist until after twinning this argument would not omit the morning after pill. Finally this argument would not omit infanticide as commonly practiced today with severely premature and physically challenged children facing lives without value as we outlined in P1.
last caveat - this argument makes no attempt at the next level argument that even if the fetus has a right not to be killed because of it life of future value, that does not necessarily give it the right to the use of the woman's body, that is a different argument that is pointless to have until this one is done. when this one is done - i am happy to do that one.
I would like to address what you think is your argument, and if I try to summarise it, I'm sure to misrepresent you; and I can't flick back and forward through the argument while keeping each bit in my head.
My aim will be to bring out the exact logical structure of the argument. I think this important because your conclusion seems to only draw on P1 and P7.
P1:
Quoting Banno
P2:Quoting Rank Amateur
The term "organism" implies an independence not found in an embryo. For a start, it cannot reproduce.
I could go with "An embryo has unique human tissue".
P3:
Quoting Rank Amateur
OK.
P4:
Quoting Banno
P5:Quoting Banno
P6:
Quoting Banno
P7:
Quoting Rank Amateur
Comments?
...because with my variation on P1, the morally significant individual is a person, not a human organism.
Which breaks the continuity of the argument.
If it is wrong to deprive a person of their future, and a person can still be a person despite being unconscious, so...
Does wrong = immoral?
Why sometimes a future, when do they not have a future?
Yep.
At their time of death. Rejecting the notion of an afterlife.
This point does nothing to the logic of the argument
OK, as long as we note that a foetus cannot survive independently.
That's what the no problem was for
Well, it's P1 and P7 that make moral claims. The other points make claims about biology, more or less; and hence are independent of any moral claim.
So why are they there?
What is the structure of the argument?
I'm looking for something that brings the is and the ought together; perhaps something along the lines of "If you want this, you ought do this". I can't see anything like that; so I can't see the logic of the argument.
That's not to say that the body is without value; but unlike a person, it's value is that it is a means to personhood; whereas a person has value in themselves.
I never for a second believed it would change anyone’s mind. Just thought thoughtful people like to consider arguments counter to their beliefs.
Time to call it a night
Further, dead bodies no longer house souls. What evidence is there that a soul enters a foetus before birth?
As an aside to you both. The pro choice academics really only attack the argument on the ideal desire point. Saying one does not get the assumption of ideal desire until one can have a desire, or cognative ability in week 25 give or take
There were other objections earlier in life of the argument, that have been addressed and Answered.
That's close enough for me. Looks much the same.
I understand. A complete solution should involve the welfare of children but isn't that another issue. The two issues are related, yes, but they can be considered separately, no?
The point is, unfortunately in this case, a woman's body is also a receptacle for life. Call it fetus if you will but it becomes a person who, you'll agree, is guaranteed basic rights.
[I]''I wanted to go to see a movie but I had to take care of my niece.''[/i] I heard someone say. Stories like these are commonplace and illustrate that, sometimes, there are other pressing concerns that take precedence over our own rights. There are no laws that cover such but people, good ones, know instinctively that our own personal rights take second place to moral responsibility.
Women should be free but also cognizant of their own power - the power to create life - and as Spiderman's uncle said ''with great power comes great responsibility''.
I know exactly what I was speaking of. You can of course use whatever term you like to refer to the position I was describing, but I'll stick with the term I used. I do not wish to argue semantics over it with you.
Quoting tim wood
The "absolute freedom" moral stance, as I defined it, isn't necessarily law abiding - at least not with regard to UK law.
As I said, some people do take the stance I described, whether you accept it or not. I don't accept it myself. My moral view is in line with UK law in this regard.
Quoting tim wood
What I said didn't need "refining". But, at least insofar as it relates to the UK, and abortion, I do agree with that needless rewording of my position.
Quoting tim wood
They're subject to the rule of law, yes. But no, that doesn't mean that women are somehow not able to make that decision. It just means that it would be in violation of the law.
Quoting tim wood
"Free"? Anyway, as I've said, it is my judgement that certain irresponsible behaviour is immoral, and that intervention of some form would be warranted in some cases.
Because, you go on
Quoting tim wood
Because, you go on
[quote="tim wood;250681"]. It has a future. Well does it? It has a possible future, and that future is problematic; viz, there's a possible future, and that possibility is subject to probability. So there is no future per se. Further, what is this future? Properly considered it is just nothing at all - a convenient fiction. Disagree? On what grounds? If the future is not-yet, how do you get from here to there or there to here? Perhaps you argue we can think about it. Think about what? The future? Again, that's not available. The trick lies in properly identifying that all we have to work with is the now, in the now. For you to confuse anything of the now with the not-yet of the future is just a mistake fatal to your argument.[/quote
In that entire description of “future “. Is there any part of that only applies to the fetus and not to Tim wood?
If there is, I don’t see it. All it says is the fetus doesn’t have a future like ours, and then a paragraph about your view on the concept about future.
But nothing that differentiate your future from the fetus
You have not even tried to support the lead sentence
It depends on how an anti abortion argument is framed. On the future value of life argument that video presents a refutation.
I think the value of a child's life is quite tied up with the environment they will be in. That has been my own experience.
I could argue that I would have been better off being aborted and people do commit suicide everyday which is a rejection of life.
I am not sure what the value of someones life is. But I have a whole thread on quality of life. I am not sure if value of life can be separated from quality of life.
I have mentioned the spirit or soul in another thread and if you believe in a spirit or soul I don't think these can be destroyed and that might be where the value lies. Some people are dualists (I am probably one) What matters is the quality of life and one may have an abortion to prevent the unborn child having a poor quality of life.
It's just the way that I feel. I could try to put into words why I feel that way, but I can't explain it beyond it's emotional foundation.
Quoting Moliere
I suppose you could look at it that way.
Quoting Moliere
That's understandable to some extent. As you know, I haven't posited an equivalence in value. I'm just saying that, the way I judge it, it's [i]valuable enough[/I] to warrant, at the very least, more than a careless disregard, as though it's nothing or just some kind of biological waste matter that we can simply dispose of without a second thought.
Quoting Moliere
And I don't view an acorn as an oak tree. I wish that people would get out of that mindset. But the value of an acorn obviously relates to the value of an oak tree, even if they're not of equal value, and even if there's quite a difference between them. The crazy thing that some of the people in this discussion seem to be neglecting to properly consider is that, all things being equal, a planted acorn grows into an oak tree. Imagine if someone judged oak trees to be of infinite value, yet, being ignorant and failing to see the value in acorns, when given one, they just throw it out of the window into their garden. Then imagine that they move out and don't return until fifty years later. They look out of their window, and to their surprise, there's an infinitely valuable oak tree! "How did that get there?", they wonder. After it had been explained to them, don't you think that they would think that they had misjudged the value of acorns?
Quoting Moliere
Evidently they're not always fully compatible, hence my argument for greater subjectivity and less of a reliance on rule following. This rules-based approach allows for the cutting out of subjectivity. "If we follow this rule, then it's not of value, so there's nothing to worry about".
Quoting Moliere
I think you're missing the point. I never argued that there's no emotional basis involved in the rules-based approach. On the contrary, I've said the opposite: there's always an emotional basis. My point was that the rules-based approach cuts out subjectivity where it shouldn't.
Quoting Moliere
Sure.
Quoting Moliere
I wouldn't say that it's a grey area. I would judge it on a case-by-case basis, and I would say that some cases are more clearcut than others.
So in murder these are the future-goods which are deprived, according to your rationale for murder being categorized as wrong.
Now I would say a bird has activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- eating, building a nest, whatever the now feels like to a bird, and the pleasures of birds. Dogs too. Animals of all sorts have a future of this sort. And they also have a value.
But I would say that animals are not as valuable as humans. I don't say this with respect to their biology -- as clearly humans are just animals as all the rest -- but because of the ethical category they fall into.
For myself I would just say murder is the immoral and intentional killing of a person -- immoral because sometimes the killing of person's is warranted, even if it is not praiseworthy. It is permissable -- such as cases of self-defense, in cases of war, and in cases of euthanasia (in order from less to more controversial). Whether a person has a future or not, such as the case where a person does not wake up from a coma, is not relevant to my thoughts -- the person has value regardless of their future.
Now for some they do not acknowledge a moral difference between beasts and persons. I don't know where you fall on that spectrum. But for me, I do -- I don't think it is immoral to own a dog, but I do think it is immoral to own a human regardless of how well treated. I don't think it is immoral to kill a deer for food, but I do think it is immoral to kill a person for food no matter how humanely done. These are some of the advantages, if we believe there is a moral difference between person's and beasts at least, of the personhood approach: it acknowledges that there is something almost infinite in the worth of others and that they, as ourselves, are owed consideration if we are to count our moral tokens (be they actions, thoughts, or character) as good.
Another advantage to this approach is that it is common sensical: Generally speaking we think other people are worthwhile. Why? Well, we can invent any rationale we want, but there isn't as much a why as there is a who or a what. Whether it be because the body has a soul, because love is all there is, because they are ends in themselves, or what-have-you the metaphysical basis for our actions doesn't matter as much as making the judgment about who is treated like this.
To me it seems that your own argument sneaks personhood, of this sort, in by referencing the activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- things which, say, a stone or an apple will not have. It just misses some of the important things that makes us specifically persons, rather than just beasts, and then tries to write off personhood accounts by saying the personhood of such-and-such does not matter, its the future of such-and-such that does. For msyelf the history matters ethically because it's the history of persons -- its not just any future, its the future of persons. But maybe there is some way of construing the future in a way that does not reference activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- or maybe there is some way to differentiate this from animals while at the same time not resembling what most of us mean by persons. But I'm not seeing how.
I hope you're not suggesting that twins aren't unique from each other.
Good point. Let's all shut up about it and live like savages.
Did you know that we also used to give babies heroin as a "soothing syrup", lobotomise people, and try to treat various ailments with toxic mercury? Isn't ignorance great?
Cool.
Quoting S
I think we'd actually agree here in all except for where you say "to some extent". For myself it seems foolish to compare the worth of a person to anything else, hence why I say its infinite -- it's not something that's really quantifiable or qualifiable. It's more like a beginning for ethical thinking. So there is no extent about it.
But, yes, I don't think careless disregard is the quite right attitude either. For instance I don't think it would be morally permissable to impregnate yourself in order to sell a developed fetus for stem-cell research. Legally, by my lights, sure -- since I don't think the law and morality are one -- but I'd put that pretty squarely in the "wrong" category as having no respect for human life.
Quoting S
Sure, I'd agree with this.
Quoting S
Heh. I don't want to get too sidetracked -- put this aside for another discussion? It seems to me that it's a bit tangential.
Quoting S
Okie dokie. Well, at least you can understand what I'm saying, I think. I judge it to basically fall squarely in the middle insofar as we're talking about prior to birth -- to myself, it's the sort of thing that one has to weigh and judge for themselves more than it is for us to all judge and think about for others -- unlike, say, murder, which is clear cut.
Obviously people do, and obviously I'm going to argue in favour of the standard I go by. Obviously.
:lol:
I don't agree. Nothing's infinitely valuable. I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't take it that far. I mean, don't get me wrong, I would save a person over a cat, for instance. [Hide]Unless that person was Sir2u.[/hide]
Quoting Moliere
Yes, a kind of middle ground between extremes seems sensible here.
Quoting Moliere
:up:
Quoting Moliere
What? It's very relevant for anyone who considers personhood to be the key determining factor with regards to value and morality in relation to abortion. Quite a few people here have made it clear that that's what they consider, yourself included it seems.
Quoting Moliere
I think that my position is liberal enough, and that if it were any more so it would be excessive.
Quoting S
How so?
It seems to me the question of personhood is just when something is considered worthy of such and such a consideration. One could frame this cognitively or non-cognitively, though, so whether our meta-ethical stance is one or the other doesn't seem to bare on the normative question. So if we are non-cognitivists about persons then there would be no real rule, but rather an emotive state, which decides when we treat such and such as a person, whereas if we are cognitivists then we'd set out some criteria to assist in judging this that or the other.
Or if we are somewhere in-between, which I think I'd say I am, then we'd say that our emotions are clearly a determining factor in which rules we follow, but rules are the means by which we discuss moral matters and consider them for revision or change --so you'd have both.
Further, we could frame things in terms of actions instead of in terms of personhood -- so the values we are thinking of are the acts one chooses. But whether we be cognitivists or non-cognitivists on the matter we can make an argument both ways.
This is becoming more and more absurd. I used the term "absolute freedom". You weren't sure what I meant. Then, instead of simply asking me what I meant, you jumped ahead with your own interpretation, and questioned whether I knew what I was talking about. I then clarified by saying that I was referring to the position whereby it's considered morally acceptable for a pregnant woman to get an abortion for any reason whatsoever. I think that that's perfectly clear. And now you're lecturing me about the importance of communication.
Quoting tim wood
Obviously my standard is obviously open to question, obviously, obviously. Obviously. Obviously, obviously, obviously, obviously...
So what?
Agree, and in the actual argument marquis address it. But the argument is not about any future, it is about a future, like ours.
Quoting Moliere
I have addressed this issue in the argument, and it is about non-justified killing. Hopping not to run off into a side argument, I ask we don't spend time arguing what is or is not justified.
Quoting Moliere
The entire purpose of the FOV argument is to avoid the personhood issue.
In short form it is quite simple and intuitively true.
Despite the coffee shop philosophy, we - people like you and me have a future that we value.
A significant harm of killing us is the loss of that future
Now the biology
About 2 weeks after conception there is a unique human organism
You, me and every human on the planet can directly trace our existence in time and space as a biological entity to such a unique organism that could only have been us.
What you moliere are living right now was the future of that one unique organism at one time.
The argument is it is wrong to unjustifiably deny a human future of value, like ours at anytime in our unique development
The argument is based mostly on pure biology, one inference that futures such as ours are valuable, and an application of ideal desire to the fetus
The argument has holes, mostly around the issue of ideal desire. But it had lasted 30 years because to a very high degree the premise is true and the logic is sound.
The thing that I always find ironic in these discussions is how so many folks, who value science so greatly in the theist, atheist discussions abandoned it in a heart beat in the personhood issue.
And the same folks how value reason so greatly in the theist,atheist discussions, are willing all kinds of twists of reason when it comes to the personhood issue, as below
The fetus is not a person because it does not have trait X
But there are all kinds of things we are happy to call persons that don't have trait X
Ok, let me modify trait X so it only applies to a fetus
Which just make the argument a fetus is not a person because the fetus is not a person
As your, it is not sentience, it is the history of sentience that is important, There is only one kind of human without a history of sentience, a fetus at some stage. Take out all the parts in the middle and your point is just a fetus is not a person because it’s a fetus
Technically I wouldn't say a newlyborn has all the qualities of a person, but in the interest of laying down a line that is on the safe side I say birth is a good point because at least at that point there is a separate body.
The life Tim wood is living right now was at one time a completely unique fetus that could only ever become one thing with one unique future- the thing that became to be known as Tim wood. That entire amount of time from then to now was at different points its future, then its present, and then its past. And that is just plain fact.
Marquis did, but I think his argument is a bit different from yours. At least if we're thinking of the same paper that he's famous for. Maybe he's made modifications that I'm unaware of.
I was wondering how your argument might deal with this.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Sure, that's fine. I was mostly supplying this to say that my theory is able to match yours, since you claimed that one of the benefits of the FOV argument is its ability to account for why murder is wrong -- so I was just displaying that personhood can also function like this. We don't need to get into what I agree would be tangential about which is better at representing the ethics of killing.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I don't think I quite see how it avoids the personhood issue, though. That's at least my failing in reading you. If it does I'm not understanding how it does so -- when I read you saying "people like you and me have a future that we value" and "A significant harm of killing us is the loss of that future" I cannot help but think -- well, yes, people like you and me do value our future. This is true.
And then wonder how we count "People like you and me" -- and that's where it seems to me personhood is assumed by yourself, or I'm just not understanding what it is about the future that is not personhood that makes it valuable.
I think it's just the best contender in town that at least claims to not rely upon theological premises, so it lasts because there is nothing else. But that's just me :D
Hrrmmm? Have we talked about a/theism and science before? I honestly don't remember.
FWIW, I try to be consistent. Obviously I fail at times.
So for yourself it seems like a shell game ,basically. If you come up with one thing that's wrong, then there's something else to put forward. So it seems like the conclusion is just assumed to be true, and the premises are ad hoc, more or less, and so not really a principle worth considering.
I don't think that personhood has a singular trait. It's a morass of traits. And, for whatever it happens to be worth, it was only after reading up on the philosophy of abortion that I believed as I do now -- I used to be more pro-life.
Not that this is to persuade you, or anything, but I'm just letting you know where I am at. I don't think I'm playing a shell game -- so at least I am not doing so intentionally.
Some actions are just straightforwardly wrong, and it would be inappropriate to have that much permissiveness in those cases -- like murder or slavery.
But abortion is not clear cut. I think that mostly stems from the fact that there are multiple things we care about in conflict with one another, plus the (relatively recent) history of equating abortion to murder to intensify those emotions.
Not specific to you, just a side rant. But at is core the issue of personhood is a denial of biology in favor of “something else. Just find it ironic
Who gets to speak for the fetus in that case? And that was the point I am making, are you 100% sure it deserves no moral standing in the discussion?
I would say that it's neither. It's a linguistic category. But I agree that it's more appropriate here to focus on whether to [i]treat like a person[/I] than whether to [i]count as a person[/I].
Quoting Moliere
So long as you don't use that as a basis to make the wrong ethical judgements about that which is prior to birth, then that's a secondary matter which we don't need to get into here.
The mother does. In some ideal sense I'd say the father too, but it's too idealistic to the practical realities of birth and who shoulders the costs of birth.
It's not that the fetus has no moral standing -- it's that the mother is the one in the best position to make that judgment, more than any other person, and in terms of universal prescriptions at least, the mother's worth is infinitely greater than what is effectively an organ.
Worthless? Surely not. But by my estimation the mother is clearly a person, and the fetus clearly is not, so there isn't really any basis of comparison.
The Foetus Ventriloquist gets my vote, but he got a life sentence for his crimes.
Yet, your position seems weak in first world countries where life is relatively comfortable. In third world countries your argument makes sense.
Quite strange to see that according to statistics, birth rates are highest in poor regions than in the rich part of the world.
Does this mean that people are being stupid? The well-off in the rich part of the world who should have children are not and the economically challenged are multiplying like rabbits.
Perhaps it's a question of access to health care - the poor who need safe abortion facilities don't have it.
It follows from your position that abortion should be unrestricted.
If abortion is just a wants issue doesn't it mean that it's nothing more than about right of a woman over her body?
If she wants to have one, she should be allowed, within the first two trimesters. Third trimester, needs might come into it.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, it doesn't.
In terms of moral justification and in accordance with UK law, it's not enough that she simply wants one. And if that means that we're not a free society as you conceive of one, then so be it.
Abortion Act 1967
Ah! So we agree. There should be constraints to abortion. It can't be absolutely free like having a haircut.
@tim wood says an abortion is like having a haircut, a woman's right to do whatever to her body.
That's a moot point. Abortion is a social issue and not only about women and their rights. This is unfortunate of course but it's a truth that women have to face. I think women ignore this to their own disadvantage. What could have been well regulated and acceptable abortion is now an unsolvable problem.
There is dispute on how good or bad a legal decision it was. But there is really no dispute it is bad philosophy.
excerpts from the majority opinion on the nature of the fetus:
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception.We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]
It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes “viable,” that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of “mediate animation,” that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this “ensoulment” theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [410 U.S. 113, 161] the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a “process” over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the “morning-after” pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. 62
In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. 63 That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [410 U.S. 113, 162] courts have squarely so held. 64 In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents’ interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes “compelling.”
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the “compelling” point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.
Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those “procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother,” sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, “saving” the mother’s life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.
This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67
So you've changed your mind? Or you're just interpreting what I said in a way that I never intended? You said that "wanting" an abortion "is enough" to morally justify getting one. I disagree. My addition of "simply" was just a way of distinguishing your position from my more complex one. In my position, want alone is insufficient grounds for moral justification. Additional factors need to be taken into consideration.
Quoting tim wood
It's a matter for doctors, and the requirement of two is a safeguarding measure. Seems sensible to me.
Quoting tim wood
I don't know. I'm just a layman on the topic of UK law.
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
The core underlying statement of fact in the decision, that allows the killing of the fetus, is the court does not really know when life begins, and they don't need to resolve it.
As I mentioned earlier - the case was about the privacy clause in the 14th amendment. Roe claimed the woman's right was absolute up to birth, The court, with the wisdom of Solomon - looked to split the difference and came up with:
"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."
And allowed states to establish some guidelines for when and when not - the prior post above about the fetus was to be a rational for establishing some guidance to the states on such a guidelines.
In short - the court ruled the woman's choice to have an abortion was protected by the 14th amendment
it however was not absolute
the court relied on prior legal criteria on if the fetus had standing, saying it did not, while acknowledging all along that it has no real knowledge of when human life begins.
What's your problem? You keep saying things along the lines that want alone is enough for a pregnant woman to justify getting an abortion, and that it's no one else's business, but then you complain that you're being misrepresented when he points out the consequences of your position to you. It's like you're moving the goalposts to prevent him from scoring. If there are no other factors that we should consider besides whether or not someone wants one, or we shouldn't even judge it in the first place, then it [I]is[/I] like getting a haircut. That's a typical way of thinking about someone getting a haircut. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Quoting tim wood
If your position is conditional on other things besides the wants of the pregnant woman, then you should stop saying things which make it seem otherwise. You shouldn't be saying that want alone is enough or that it's none of our business if you agree with us that there are cases where that doesn't bear true. Want alone is enough! (Except when x, y, z...). It's none of your business! (Except when it is because of x, y, z...). Why are you excluding the exceptions to the rule, or trying to sweep them under the rug, as though they're not relevant? They're relevant in both a legal and an ethical sense. Want alone isn't enough, both morally (in my judgement) and legally (in the UK) as per the Abortion Act 1967, under the section about the medical termination of a pregnancy, subsection (1) (a) through to (d). It's my business because I make it my business: we're discussing the ethics of it. You're the one who started the discussion. Bit weird to start an ethical discussion and then when people tell you of their ethical judgement, you respond that it's none of their business.
No, he didn't. This tells us about you, not Tim.
Sigh. Do you really have to ask? To protect the interests of both the patient and the doctor. The patient could claim that she was pressured or coerced or that the doctor was biased against her. The doctor might have judged it poorly or missed something. It's good to get a second opinion, for someone to look at it through different eyes, and to sign off on it, as an added layer of authorisation, so that it doesn't end up being treated as something more low-level or trivial like picking up a prescription or going for a checkup at the dentist. If you were a doctor or working in the legal department of a hospital, would you really argue against this?
Quoting tim wood
Lots of words, but you haven't really said anything. It's ironic that you end by talking of getting lost in rhetoric. The above is just uncharitable characterisation, ad hominems, loaded language... "awful", "disingenuous", "viscous", "relentless attack"... Give me a break.
Quoting tim wood
But want alone clearly isn't enough. And it's clearly not just her business. Isn't that why you objected to the comparison to getting your hair cut? Because there's more to it than that? Do you even know the implications of what you're saying? You need to [i]look deeper into[/I] the wants to reach a sensible moral judgement. You can't just say "If she wants an abortion, then it's okay! Who am I to judge?". Well, you can [i]say[/I] that, but it shows a lack of good judgement. If that's your view, then you can't reject the getting-a-hair-cut type of comparisons. If you're going to bite the bullet, then you'll have to accept the consequences. You can't just move the goalposts back and forth.
Obviously we agree that it's okay if a pregnant woman [i]needs[/I] an abortion, say, for medical reasons, like I said in my very first comment in this discussion, and as per the Abortion Act 1967 which I've referenced. That's beside the point.
You'd need to qualify for one, which is the point. There are conditions you're required to meet. In the UK, to apply for your first provisional driving licence you must be at least 15 years and 9 months old and able to read a number plate from 20 metres away. You’ll need to provide an identity document unless you have a valid UK biometric passport; addresses where you’ve lived over the last 3 years; and your National Insurance number if you know it. There may be additional checks by the DVLA. You'll need to pay either £34 or £43 depending on how you apply. There are different rules for when you can drive with a provisional licence depending on your age and the type of vehicle.
And you need to qualify for an abortion too. There are conditions you're required to meet which I've quoted and referenced. These requirements are there for a reason. It's neither morally justified nor within the confines of the law for people to do whatever they want, whether we're talking about driving a car or getting an abortion.
Quoting tim wood
You sure have a knack for making it sound otherwise in some of what you've been saying.
Quoting tim wood
There you go again! How peculiar. You acknowledge that, beyond the wanting, there are "hurdles to clear" and you say that ("of course") the wanting is not the end of the matter, but then you say that the wanting is enough. Well, clearly it isn't, is it? By your own admission, they would still have to [i]qualify[/I] or "clear the hurdles".
And it's not true that no one has made that case. I've made that case. Wanting by itself isn't enough because it would permit bad eventualities. A bad eventuality would be getting an abortion for a bad reason. And a bad reason would be a reason which doesn't qualify under the Abortion Act 1967.
Quoting tim wood
Weird.
Quoting tim wood
Isn't abortion a social issue? Social issues are everybody's business, no?
I understand the process of pregnancy is quite tough for a woman. Carrying a baby for 9 months, delivering it, taking care of it, is no easy job. I see it as power - to be the cradle of life. Do women want to give up this power for the sake of something so petty as the right to abortion which is a denial of what is woman's essence?
:rofl:
I see. So, now you resort to ad hominems.
You're seeing this from a woman's point of view and also in the very narrow sense of rights.
Rights are, by definition, formulated in terms of leasts. Every right, including the right of a woman you're so enthusiatically advocating, is minium of freedom.
I, on the other hand, am talking of a woman's true worth. It goes beyond rights - even slaves had rights. A woman's power lies in her womb and what it can do and not what can be done to it.
Also, I have a feeling that women don't think in your terms. They're not fighting the pro-lifers to do anything they want. They simply want abortion to be available to them in case there are no alternatives.
It could also be that they're confused about the whole issue as it's been, unfortunately and erroneously, linked to women's rights or emancipation. This is an incorrect view. Women's rights and abortion are two unrelated issues linked together by the unscrupulous and narrow minded.
This is a natural tendency and can be forgiven but not ignored. It happens to us all. Women want freedom (I second that) but some unscrupulous and, perhaps, foolish people, have attached this to absolute freedom in abortion. I say women can get equal rights and should fight for it but absolute freedom in abortion isn't an indication of that. In fact, it's to submit that they have an unwanted trait that they'd rather not have. What does that show? Nothing other than their tacit confession that they're the weaker sex and disliked by their own ilk.
:roll:
Right, here in the UK, you never get any pregnant women who are in any way vulnerable or at any risk whatsoever to themselves or by putting doctors at risk, and a single doctor can always be trusted completely, without giving it a second thought, and a single doctor is at no risk whatsoever for anything in anyway if the patient decides to take legal action against the doctor or the hospital. In fact, there is no such thing as health risks or legal risks here in the UK. You only get those in other countries. Would you believe it, we're risk free. We should therefore immediately scrap any kind of safeguarding in relation to these nonexistent risks. What were we thinking?
Is that your position? Is that it? Huh? Speak up. What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? Scrap any safeguards in place because patients and doctors are always in the right state of mind and always make the right judgements and decisions? Is that it? Is that what you think? They're infallible and safeguards are obsolete, are they? Well...?
Interested your guys view on the concept of Implied consent on the right of the fetus to the use of the woman's body.
the logic goes something like this:
People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions.
Pregnancy is predictable consequence of sex, birth control can very effectively reduce, but not eliminate that this consequence.
By freely entering into sex, where pregnancy is a predictable consequence, there is an implied consent that the fetus has a right to the use of the woman's body.
As an example: A woman decides to have a baby, against the wishes of the father. He doesn't want the baby. Baby comes, she sues him for child support - and in general wins. The reason being that the child was a result of his willful act, with a child as a possible consequence.
I previously answered that I'm a layman regarding UK law, suggesting that I don't know. I am also a layman regarding UK healthcare practices and procedures. I just know a few things specifically relating to abortion. This isn't the first discussion on the topic that I've read or participated in.
Quoting tim wood
That wasn't an attempt to answer your question. That was me giving you a taste of your own medicine.
I might address the rest of your post which I left out before, if I think that it warrants a reply, and if I feel like it. But not right now. (I'm actually at work).
Quoting tim wood
I have answered the question of the opening post, and you can't fault me on succinctness in doing so. The real question is whether you'll accept it, disagree with it [i]properly[/I], or dismiss it out of hand.
An interesting angle. The consent seems manufactured though. You cannot implicitly consent to a result you explicitly try to avoid. Having sex entails a non-zero chance of pregnancy, but awareness of a possibility is not sufficient to establish consent, implied or otherwise. To use an absurd example: Walking down a dark street might entail a non-zero chance of being robbed, but I do not implicitly consent to that outcome just by taking the risk.
Since you referenced child support, the justification here is a little different, I think. It's not that the father implicitly consented to paying child support in the event of a child being born. It's that society defers the financial burden created by the child on the person who is responsible for creating the risk in the first place. Neither consent nor guilt (in a legal sense) are required.
Thanks for replying. Sorry if what I say is nonsense to you but am I not right to state that women wanting abortions are, in a sense, undermining their own position by meaning ''I don't like my body''.
One must remember that the right to have an abortion is linked to women's rights. Women want to be considered equal to men (wonderful!) but if abortion is part of the effort then they're admitting, unwittingly and sadly, that they hate their own bodies and that they'd prefer NOT to be woman.
So, tell me, is the freedom to have an abortion really a woman's right or is it a repressed desire to be a man? It's really sad to see women wasting time and effort fighting to become men when there's so much more to she-ness than just a right to have an abortion.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine if sexism were in favor of women. Would they fight for abortion as they're doing? No, because equality of rights isn't an issue any more. I even would go as far as to say that women, if the stronger sex, would use their uterus, as life's source, to subdue men even further.
My response would be that the robbery is the action of another. You can't implicitly consent to someone else's action.
Quoting Echarmion
Not sure I understand the difference i those 2 points, seems to be saying the exact same thing twice, using different words. What am I missing ?
I understand and agree with the reasoning, however I would have to word it differently because I think that implied consent from the foetus is literally nonsense. You could instead make it about the rights of the parents, saying that they'd have lost or diminished their rights.
You are missing the point, this is actually a non-response to the point raised against your position. The point is that doing something that has a non-zero chance of risk isnt consent of those risks. Consent is about a persons approval or willingness. When a doctor does surgery to save someone's life, they are not consenting to that persons death just because that is a risk entailed in the surgery...thats not what consent is.
When a person chooses to drive a car they are not consenting to anyones death if they get in a fatal accident, nor are they consenting that they should die if they happen to ram into a wall. They are accepting risk, not consenting to the results of the risks. You are only framing it that way to support your position, but it doesnt make as much sense as you think it does. You are mis-usung the word consent in this instance.
In the case of the robbery, there are 2 acts of free will, one walking down the street, and the robber's to rob them. If I flip your logic to the robber it goes like this - I am a robber it is what I do, I work this street - there is some probability that some innocent person will walk down it, if they do I rob them. I am not responsible, because they walked down the street.
this is a legal definition of Implied consent:
"The assumption that a person has given permission for an action, which is inferred from his or her actions, rather than expressly or explicitly provided."
So there is some room for argument on granting or not granting that assumption. In the case o, for lack of a better word " accidents", - your robber, car driver etc" I would argue that assuming the risk, if needed it not a permission for the accident. I would not make the same case for sex.
In the example of the surgeon, before the operation you will sign to agree to the possible risks, and relieve the surgeon of most responsibilities - to specifically avoid an area of implied consent, and make it explicit.
Quoting DingoJones
I am framing it in any position, just raising an issue that is part of the discussion. I think maybe yes, you think maybe no, we chat and see what happens.
No, if we are using the legal definitions of the term, at least approximately, then you can implicitly consent to someone elses actions. That's actually the main practical application of the notion of implied consent, for things like life-saving surgery. Given the way you framed your argument, it also seems to me you effectively consider the fetus another person.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I am not entirely sure what you are saying here, but consent and responsibility aren't correlated in the way you seem to imply. The responsibility of the person acting for the consequences of that action are unrelated to whether or not the person that is acted upon has consented. You can be responsible for moral or otherwise permissible actions, the question just doesn't usually come up.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Could you elaborate on why you would exclude an unwanted pregnancy from the list of "accidents"?
Quoting Rank Amateur
What I was trying to say is that there are different levels of justification necessary for the outcomes. In order for someone else to have "access" (to use a very general term) to your body, consent is necessary. In order to be held criminally accountable, you need to be guilty. In order to be asked to shoulder the financial burdens resulting from a risk, it can be sufficient that you are the person most closely associated with the risk, e.g. because you derived some kind of benefit from the action that caused the risk. Provided that there is no other actor who is more responsible.
The details will differ according to the specific laws, but here is another example: If you build a house, and an earthquake then damages the house to such an extend that it is a danger to the neighbors or passersby, you can be obligated to have the house torn down, at your expense. You did not consent to the earthquake and are not responsible for it, yet you still have to shoulder the costs because it's your house.
Quoting Echarmion
I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. In your example the robber is the woman and the fetus is innocent walking down the street.
Quoting Echarmion
because it does not require the deliberate of even accidental activity of a 3rd party. If the woman and man have sex, there is some probability - solely due to their actions alone - that they may become pregnant.
Quoting Echarmion
so after all that, should the Dad be required to pay child support ??
That does not make sense to me. Your initial argument was that the mother implicitly consented to the use of her body by the fetus. That implies that you accept the notion of bodily autonomy, which holds that no other person has a right to use my body, or parts of it, without consent. Since the fetus is using the body of the mother, it is doing something that is not generally permissible, like the robber in my example.
If it were the other way around, any consent of the mother, implied or otherwise, would be irrelevant.
Quoting Rank Amateur
That still doesn't explain how the consent is implied though. Implied consent still needs to be actually established by the facts. The goal is to approximate a hypothetical state of mind, not to enforce a predetermined result. You need to establish that the person in question, if they had been fully aware of all facts, would have consented. This is not the case for unwanted pregnancies just as it is not the case for car accidents. Whether or not you hit a tree or another car isn't relevant.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Yes.
actually what I argued was. by her action of free will, she was responsible for the possible outcomes of that action. So to put back in your example. Between the mother and the fetus, the only one who made an act of free will was the mother. The fetus was the innocent. It was just becoming a fetus. Like your innocent person just walking down the block.
And yes, i completely agree with your concept of bodily autonomy - that is the nature of the question - does sex imply consent to the possible outcome. Obvioulsy the world right now says no. And it could be right, but i don't think the question is without merit.
Quoting Echarmion
are you trying to say that the woman was not fully aware that sex can cause pregnancy? That last sentence of yours, at least as i see it now, makes no sense at all.
Quoting Echarmion
why ??
Im sorry sir, but you are. The use of “consent” is being misapplied in direct service to you making the argument that taking on risk includes consent. It doesnt. This is the framing that im talking about, the structure (via misapplying the word “consent”) you are using to make your argument. It services your stance in abortion, but the framing is erroneous therefore it does not support your stance the way you think it does.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Why are you quoting this? Are we talking about the law, or the morality? I was under the impression its the latter you are concerned with, but you go on to insert more legal factors about doctors and consent forms...you are missing the point about the doctor example, and just muddying the waters.
Intentional or not, you are obfuscating here.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Im sorry sir but this illustrates profound confusion. Please notice that you didnt mention consent at all in that, not even your previous, incorrect use of the term. Im not trying to be rude, but you havent flipped the logic at all. You have merely sidestepped and then tried to drag me down an alleyway with you. Your use of my example fails, as the robber is not assuming the risk of an innocent person coming down the street. Thats not risk, that is the whole point of the robbers plans of robbing. Its his hope that someone comes by for him to rob. So I think you’ve jumbled things up a bit here, as I mentioned before you are mis-using the term consent here and from that basis you have become confused. You said you understand but I cannot see how that's possible given your response.
They're serious in other respects, so your response misses the mark. And no, your slippery slope fallacy isn't a good argument, either. If a case is judged to have reached a certain level of seriousness, then a second opinion is warranted. My understanding is that, generally, in some cases, it might be at the request of the patient, whereas in others, it might happen behind closed doors between medical professionals. In all cases of abortion, it happens to be a requirement of the law. That's probably because it's judged to be a fairly unique situation, and because it's not just about the patient, but the future of another living human foetus growing inside of her. At 8 weeks, it has a recognisably humanlike form, including a head, eyes, the beginnings of a nose, arms, legs, a beating heart...
Quoting tim wood
Except that it isn't in some cases. It's not morally justified in any case where the pregnant woman is consciously aware of pursuing an abortion on an immoral basis. Cases where the continuance of the pregnancy would not involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family. For example, she's simply changed her mind in the kind of way that she changed her mind about those shoes she bought last month.
If it's not pursued on an immoral basis, or if it's pursued on an immoral basis, but the pregnant woman is ignorant, then by all means, she should pursue one. In the case of the latter, that's what medical professionals and abortion laws are there for. She would be engaged and assessed, and an appropriate outcome would be determined. There's a process in place that she'd have to go through, involving checks and balances. It's not like going through a McDonald's drive thru.
Quoting tim wood
That's a poorly considered question that I've answered multiple times now. Stop mindlessly re-asking it, please. The obvious answer again: mine!
Quoting tim wood
That phrasing is exactly the kind of thing that you've been saying, even if I haven't replicated your phrasing word for word. This is just the now infamous Tim Wood pedantry rearing its ugly head once again. You said "It's enough", I said "It's okay". You said "It's none of your business", I rhetorically asked "Who are you to judge?".
Quoting tim wood
The UK Parliament makes the laws. But I'm the one who's judging the matter. This isn't really a matter of authority. I'm just sharing my judgement and my reasoning and arguing the case. You're doing the same. Your search for a presumed authority is misguided. What do you expect? Do you expect me to pull out some kind of certification in moral authority?
[I]"I hereby present to you my certification of moral authority. As you can see, I have a level 5 moral authority, whereas you're only a level 2, so I'm your superior and you must concede".[/I]
Quoting tim wood
Quoting S
Quoting tim wood
When you two have made your mind up, do me a favour and let me know.
Quoting tim wood
Some kind of tribunal? Jesus Christ. What nonsense. What I'm saying really isn't that complicated and can be explained in just a handful of words. [B]I judge the conditions for determining the morality of getting an abortion to match the conditions for determining the legality of getting an abortion.[/b] If the pregnant woman doesn't qualify for an abortion as per (1)(a), then she shouldn't get one - not merely because it would be against the law, but because it wouldn't be right. You're free to judge it differently, but if so, I would question your judgement.
The name of the concept is "implied consent" I didn't chose it. You can surely make a case the concept doesn't apply. But it has nothing at all do to with my framing. I am just looking at the concept that is both moral and legal, and asking if it applies here.
Quoting DingoJones
In this case both.
Quoting DingoJones
no worries - we disagree. On to the next
No. You are wrong and im explaining why. This is a familiar display of cowardess from you. I had forgotten you were the guy who resorts to disingenuous withdrawal (disingenuous because this isnt agreeing to disagree as you imply but rather “i cannot admit I am wrong”).
I will try not to forget again: Rank Amateur is a pretender of civility (much more rude to dismiss rather than say “fuckoff dummy”) and an intellectual coward. I think it will stick now that Ive written it down, that seems to help my memory.
You are jumping between two unrelated concepts here. Responsibility is a relation between a subject and an event. Consent is a relation between two subjects. Responsibility establishes whether or not the subject is the author of the event. Consent establishes the permissions the subjects have concerning each other.
An act of free will does not make you responsible for all possible outcomes of that act. But even if we ignore the details and assume that the mother is responsible for the resulting pregnancy, this does not impact her right to bodily autonomy. In order to overcome bodily autonomy, you need consent.
In that sense, your question is not without merit, or your initial question had merit, because it explicitly based it's argument on consent. In your latest posts, however, you seem to have gotten no closer to actually establish consent, implied or otherwise.
Whether or not my example with the robber convinces you, you still need to show how the consent is implied.
Quoting Rank Amateur
No, I am saying awareness of a risk is not the same as consent. Consent is granting a permission, it requires not just awareness but also intent.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Because the parents are the ones most closely associated to the creation of the child. Given that a child has certain material needs in order to develop, who else is supposed to shoulder this burden if not the parents?
That is the reason I stop. Why continue ? We each made our point, You seemed quite convinced. There was not going to be anything more of value to say. Why continue ?
and the difference between that and, the taking care of the material needs before birth ? Again, an assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral entity.
So that you can understand your error and stop making it. That you see no value in at least the potential for that is intellectual cowardice.
Financial interests don't have the same moral weight as the integrity of life and limb.
What is an immoral basis for pursuing an abortion? If you have already discussed that, I might have overlooked it, the thread is long.
Indeed, I have already discussed it prior to that post. But funnily enough, I just finished editing that part because I thought it appropriate to expand on it.
Here's that part again with my recently edited addition:
Some of that wording comes from the Abortion Act 1967, which forms part of UK law.
Also, I think that the following - all the way back on page 4 - was a good point:
Quoting Michael
That might seem a little unrelated, but they're both points against what I called the "absolute freedom" ethical stance on abortion, whereby "It's her body, she can do what she wants with it!" and "Her wanting an abortion is enough!" and "It's none of your business!" or "Oh yeah, well by whose authority?". It's an extreme and unsophisticated position.
I am not going to be able to fully derive a system of moral philosophy right here. If I ever do that, perhaps you can buy it as a book. But I can try to do a very rough sketch:
Morality is the set of rules that allows for the greatest practical self-actualization of interacting subjects (or, more simply, the greatest practical freedom). Life has the highest moral weight because it's the sine qua non of any self actualization. Your body is the part of the outside world most closely associated with your self, so it has significant moral weight. Wealth is comparatively ephemeral. It is a general tool for many forms of self actualization, but it's also the product of social interaction, so it's already entangled with the interests of others and thus has only limited moral weight.
If you've read other comments of mine in this discussion and in other ethical discussions that I've participated in, then I think that my position on such matters should be pretty clear. I don't posit an objective standard for moral justification. I'm just expressing my judgement. I've quoted the basis upon which I make my judgement (the Abortion Act 1967), but you might judge it differently. If so, and if I can't convince you otherwise, then we hit a brick wall, where all I can really say is that I don't judge it that way, and that my way seems right and yours wrong. Mine has a foundation in how I value the foetus, which is about how I emotionally connect.
Quoting tim wood
I've had a similar argument with Hanover about this, and would recommend that you check out that discussion between us in this thread - especially as I think that it addresses some of what you're saying above. I don't agree with him or you on this. There might come a point where the discussion between you and I cannot progress, but you shouldn't just dismiss my normative position on the basis of my meta-ethical position. I don't think that my meta-ethical position is that much of a problem, and I certainly don't think that the meta-ethics of objective morality is any kind of solution or fares any better.
Quoting Echarmion
In general we follow those with support, so the person you are talking to can address it.
And as a reminder, the necessary base assumption for the sake of argument is the fetus is a moral entity. It is a conflict of claims on bodily autonomy in this argument.
If you don't want to participate in that line of logic because you can't grand the concession for sake of the argument, I am 100% fine with that.
So, back to the argument if, as you say you are the parents have an obligation to the child by nature of the act of having sex, why does that obligation not extend pre birth, again, for the sake of this argument the fetus is something with moral standing.
Don't get the wrong idea, I definitely wasn't suggesting that the law establishes morality. I agree that morality is primordial. I was just saying that in this particular case, the one and the other are in sync. In other contexts, that's not the case: there's a mismatch.
With the Abortion Act 1967, I judged it to be a good template for determining the morality of getting an abortion. But that's only because of my preexisting moral sentiments. It always stems back to that, as per Hume. "Reason is the slave of the passions".
This is honestly confusing to me. Can you not address the answer I gave?
Quoting Rank Amateur
Because the obligation is not absolute or all encompassing. There is an obligation to support the child, but that obligation does not extend to your bodily integrity. You have asked why, before, and my answer would be that your body is the only connection to the outside world you, as a consciousness, have, and is therefore central to your freedom. As such, it is strongly protected.
Thank you for elaborating. Would I mischaracterise your position if I summed it up as: A mother has a moral obligation to carry a child to term, unless doing so entails an significant net risk (as compared to termination of the pregnancy)?
I leave the details of what significant risks are out because it's not related to my follow up question. If you don't disagree with my summary, my question is this: Where does this obligation come from? And to whom is the mother obligated?
What's an obligation? I tend not to find much use for that word. Is it that she should behave in a certain way: a way which I judge to be moral? It comes from me and my emotions and my reasoning, which forms a judgement. If I'm right, which naturally I think I am, then naturally I think that she should act in accordance with what I judge to be right; or she's obligated to act in accordance with what I judge to be right, I suppose you could say.
An obligation means you should behave a certain way, yes. I use the term to signify that the mother should behave that way regardless of her personal feelings on the matter. I am aware that the judgement comes "from your reasoning", but what is that reasoning? If you reasoned there must be reasons, and I'd like to know what they are.
I've already given them, haven't I? :chin:
So, in some type of summary, To the question I proposed, although you seem to believe in the concept of an implied consent, you point is it does not apply to pre birth, because it seems your view is bodily integrity is a stronger claim.
A thought experiment:
Imagine there's a building marked for demolition and all preparations are complete. Just before the teamleader presses the detonator someone comes running and screams ''there [i]may be somebody inside the building!''[/i].
What does a normal person do?
I would stop the demolition and send a search time inside the building to ensure it's empty of occupants.
Isn't abortion just like this situation? We don't know if a person is inside the fetus or not. What is the right thing to do?
Not that I can see, or are you saying you gave them earlier in the thread?
Quoting Rank Amateur
No, my answer to the question you initially proposed is that implied consent cannot be established in those circumstances. Since you stopped responding to any of the arguments on that point, I had assumed you dropped it.
My answer to your other, unrelated, question of why child support is a moral obligation while carrying a child to term is not is what you quoted.
No, in my view, abortion is not just like that situation. I said earlier that I think of personhood as a linguistic category. By that I mean that we can string together a bunch of words and declare that if these words fit, then "it" is a person. There's much less variation regarding personhood when it comes to categorising a typical adult human than a human foetus. We agree that a typical adult human is a person, and the issue is whether or not this person is inside the building - which we don't know - and what we should do.
But whether or not we know that there's a person "inside" the foetus depends much more on how we're using the word "person" (and whether or not it fits). The issue is not so much that we don't know, but rather [i]how we're using language[/I].
The way I see it, to focus on the language is the [i]wrong approach[/I]. Let's just use "it" or "thing" instead. What really matters is how we value it, what we judge to be the right and wrong actions regarding it, and so on. It can be a dangerous route to go down to base value judgements on ruling out personhood.
I've considered the other positions in this discussion which take a different approach, but none of them seem better than mine.
Why don't you check out what I've said and get back to me? I'm not sure exactly what it is you're after from me, and I don't really feel like starting from scratch or repeating myself. Perhaps you could be more specific.
Quoting Echarmion
not sure I stopped responding. Again you denied the concept of implied consent - out of hand.
Quoting Echarmion
You give no reason at all why, it is manufactured, that attempts to avoid relieve you of responsibility, or why awareness is not sufficient. You just state they are. It is not just you, but this seems rather normal on here. Without any reasons why or supporting those points, they are just your opinions - which is fine. But it just boils down to - your argument is wrong because I don't believe it.
On the final point on the robber I can back explaining you had the backwards, the child in the innocent actor and the mother is the robber.
to this you cam back
Quoting Echarmion
Yet again, one more declaration that an act of free will does not make you responsible - with no support of the idea, acknowledgement of where it does or where it does not - and why the difference.
then granting for the sake of argument you go to declare - once again -
But even if we ignore the details and assume that the mother is responsible for the resulting pregnancy, this does not impact her right to bodily autonomy. In order to overcome bodily autonomy, you need consent.
So my base argument asks does the sex provide some obligation on the use of the mothers body - this above is just a long way to say NO, because i say so. Once again - just one more declarative sentence - without support. Just opinion
However, when it came to the child support question - you seem quite willing to assign the father responsibility for his action. seemingly based on differentiation between financial support and the use of the woman's body as below
Quoting Echarmion
I was attempting here to summarize where we are to continue:
Quoting Rank Amateur
which still seems a rather good summary
to which you come back.
Quoting Echarmion
Which still is just saying, yet again, that Rank you are wrong because I say so. And for good measure your example is unrelated because i say so.
I am not trying to be a jerk, but it just turns into twitter if we just share unsupported opinions. You can and should attack my position, and I make that easier by giving you the basis of the belief. So we can logically argue the concepts. See if the concepts apply uniformly across other scenarios or not, and if not why.
He grants, that the free act of having sex establishes a responsibility for the existence of the fetus, it does not, however establish a responsibility of the dependence of the fetus on the woman's body. The though experiment is, a doctor saves my life today, 2 years later I develop Parkinson's. I sue the surgeon for support, because if he had not saved my life, I would not have gotten ill.
My problem with this argument is, by granting the parents are responsible for the existence, and since not responsible for the dependence and can deny the use of her body on this rational. We are right back to where we usually get in the abortion discussion. Some action that most people would consider wrong, to a born human, is somehow not wrong in an un-born human.
If you tried to make a case that a mother or father does not need to take care of a 1 month old, because their act of sex does not directly establish the dependence of the baby would seem insane.
So we get back to where we normally end up. The moral rules that apply outside the womb, do not apply inside the womb. Because we are able to convince ourselves, maybe correctly, maybe not, that the fetus is without the moral standing to deserve like protection.
Quick aside, and it may just be me - but i find your prose most confusing. But let me give it a try.
"It seems you want to establish consent. "
Not really, what the proposal is, is that by some action of free will consent is already present - such as, by my act of free will of choosing to live in the US I have given tacit consent to abide by the laws. I haven't signed anything. No one said these are your options.
"Consent is both a moral and a legal construct. "
OK
"In either case, for there to be consent, there has to be the capacity to consent, and the consent has to be meaningful. Among the things "meaningful" means is that the person consenting, when he consented, had a real choice and could have not consented if he had so wished. "
I think you want to hold this to a standard of explicit consent, like signing an ok to do an operation
the point I am making is, there is a non explicit consent given, even without knowing one had, as the result of a willful act.
Tacit consent is a silent consent given by your actions.
and again the argument.
We are responsible for the predicable results of our acts of free will
The existence of a depended being is a predicable result of sex
therefore - the act of sex is an act of tacit consent for the care of the fetus.
and again - we hold to this standard in most cases involved with the child - such as paternity suits. It is the same concept, applied differently in 2 different situations. Which is fine, so it is either because the use of the mothers body is a very different thing than the use of the father's body and effort to make money, which it might be. Or because the of the different nature of the born human, versus the unborn human.
But in either case we once again modify a criteria or principal for the fetus.
I did no such thing. Implied consent is a valid concept. I disagreed with your application of the concept.
Quoting Rank Amateur
The reasons are right in the bit you quoted, and I have expanded on them several times. I can try again: Implied consent is not imposed consent. The intent must be actually implied by either the interests of the person whose consent you try to establish, or their actions. Corresponding to that, if the declared intent of a person is to avoid a certain scenario, this rules out implied consent. Consent is an intentional act, it's giving permission. You cannot reduce it to merely being aware of a possibility.
This is again all based on the assumption that you use the common, approximately legal definition of consent. If by implied consent you mean something significantly different, I'd ask you to provide an explanation.
Quoting Rank Amateur
The reasoning here is that unpredictable or extremely unlikely outcomes of an act of free will are not actually expressions of that will.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Your argument was explicitly based on the notion of consent. If you want to establish the moral obligation some other way, you need to actually make that argument. I cannot respond to arguments in your head.
Quoting Rank Amateur
It's odd that you arrive at this conclusion given that I have explicitly stated that it's not based on responsibility.
Quoting Rank Amateur
The issue I have with your "style", for lack of a better word, is that it seems to me you don't stick to one specific line of argument. You have alternatively used either responsibility or consent as the basis for your argument, but those are different concepts. I don't see how you can switch from one to the other without changing the entire structure of your argument.
Quoting Rank Amateur
This seems close to my position, though I don't think the thought experiment is a great way to illustrate the point.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Is it wrong to deny a born human usage of your body? Let's say you cause a car accident by being negligent, which leads to a severe injury of another person. It seems fairly straightforward that you are responsible for the injuries. Are you morally obligated to donate blood to the injured person? donate a kidney? I don't think the answer is always yes regardless of circumstance.
Quoting Echarmion
That is true of explicit consent, But implied consent, as you have already agreed here Quoting Echarmion
to as a valid concept is by definition not an intentional giving of permission.
Quoting Echarmion
well here Quoting Echarmion, you accept the concept and 2 lines later you ask me to define it.
but in any case - this should work
Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation
Quoting Echarmion because ...... yet again you need to support the reasons behind statements like that. Give an example of where it would apply. As it stands it is just an opinion -
Quoting Echarmion
My argument was about implied consent, which you have already agreed is valid. I have defined it, I have shown how it could possibly apply to the use of the mothers body, and gave an example in the case of paternal child support where it is used. Not sure how much better it could be explained.
Quoting Echarmion
but your wrote
Quoting Echarmion
Quoting Echarmion
yea - i feel the same, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I tried to be clear. Looks like i failed. But I hold to my point, that so much of your objections have been completely unsupported opinions - i am aware you don't see it that way.
Quoting Echarmion
I was trying to be helpful, and give the best argument against.
Quoting Echarmion
I agree.
but in the what would be the right thing to do " give blood" - I vote yes. Give a kidney - I say no.
How about a 9 month blood transfusion - that only you can do, to save the life you put in danger ?
which is why I tried to summarize -
Quoting Rank Amateur
Sure. So the couple involved in a conception are responsible for the result.
Now, what in that implies that they ought carry through to birth?
There seems to be some basic misunderstanding between the two of us on what consent *is*. Not on the definition, because I have no issue with the definitions you provided, but on how the definition is applied to practical cases.
I can consent by walking up to someone and saying "please do X".
My consent can be implied if I say "please to Y", and I know that in order to do Y, X needs to be done first.
It can also be implied if I say "please do Y", and either X or Z lead to Y, but X is more in line with my known interests.
In any case, my consent is linked to my intention. Consent is an intentional act, and implied consent needs to conserve that intentionality, either by reference to another intention I do actually have, or by reference to an intention I would presumably have formed, had I been aware of the options.
You might ask why intentionality needs to be conserved. My answer would be that by consenting, you waive rights. Since only you can waive your rights, this waiver needs to be attributable to you as a subject. And the way to do that is via your intentions.
If you disagree with this on a fundamental level, we need to have an entirely different discussion on the fundamentals of self, action, responsibility etc. before we can continue here.
Now, assuming you do not disagree that consent needs to be linked to intention:
If you do not intent to have a child, and do in fact hope or assume that the sex will not lead to pregnancy, then you do not consent, implicitly or otherwise, to the consequences of that pregnancy. To assume you implicitly consented by having sex would ignore your actual intentions and replace them with the opposite.
If, on the other hand, you do intent to get pregnant, or at least accept that result as an acceptable outcome, then you could be said to have implicitly consented to the consequences of that pregnancy.
So there is a case to be made on the basis of implied consent, but only for intentional pregnancies.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I did not expect that statement to be controversial. You are familiar with the term "butterfly effect", I assume? I think it's fairly obvious that you cannot be responsible for every possible outcome of your actions. That would turn responsibility into mere causality.
As a matter of practicality, you cannot expect me to give you a full argument from first principles for every single statement I make. It'd take entire books worth of text. I would ask you, instead, to note when you have a fundamental disagreement. We can then try to establish the closest common ground and work from there.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I avoided using the term responsibility in the bits you quoted on purpose, though I cannot fault you for not knowing that. I don't think financial burdens need to be based on responsibility. Society needs to distribute burdens somehow, and sometimes this means that a financial burden ends up with someone who is not strictly responsible for it's creation. I know this is not a full argument. If you are really interested we could discuss it at length as it's own topic.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I think the fact that we feel the need to differentiate between a single blood transfusion, a long term transfusion and donation of a kidney already establishes that responsibility for the pregnancy is not sufficient to completely overcome any interest the mother has in her bodily autonomy.
I think the argument can be made that, regardless of morality, it can never be a legal obligation to provide your body to others. But this is just my opinion at this point, to establish it as an argument we'd have to talk about the difference of morality and legality and that is a thread in it's own right.
In the realm of morality, I think in order to progress at this stage, we'd need to establish just how much responsibility sex entails. I don't think having protected sex is negligent. Unprotected sex, maybe, but it's probably not "running a red light during rush hour" negligent.
Can you tie that to the father and mother having no responsibility for the consequence of their act of free will please.
Quoting tim wood
Yet again, just a bunch of words that say I disagree, With no support.
Are we or are we not responsible for the predictable outcomes of our acts of free will?
If no, why.
If yes,
Is pregnancy the predictable out come of sex?
Again, assuming only for the sake of this argument that the fetus is a moral actor, Why are the mother and father not responsible?
Quoting tim wood
And the Tim wood closing barb that no comment is complete without
So, are we relieved of the responsibility of our acts of free will, simply by them not being intended? I didn't want to hit that car as I ran the red light, my intention was only to save a few minutes.
Quoting Echarmion
Yet, you have agreed already that the father has to pay child support, after he has said he had no intention of having the child. Can you bridge that for me?
Quoting Echarmion
You realize that is a blatant contradiction in terms
Quoting Echarmion
So we are responsible for the direct and predictable results of our act of free will because a butterfly flapped it wings in Argentina? Not buying the butterfly defense in this specific set of circumstances. Seems a reach to me. But, thank you for the reasoning behind the statement, it helps.
Quoting Echarmion
I would agree, for sure that their is a continuum of responsibility of degree with not having sex at one end, and unprotected sex, during ovulation at the other end.
And in a practical sense, if an effective method of contraception is used effectively, well over 95 or more percent of this issue is moot. And, while effectively trying to limit the possible results of your actions is the right thing to do, I still would argue the mere change in the probability of the result does not relieve you of the responsibility
Isn't personhood the main issue. If we take that out of the discussion then the opponent pro-lifers vanish into thin air. The pro-choicers win without even lifting a finger.
I understand your point though. Personhood is a nebulous concept and probably impossible to apply to the issue. A practical approach would be, like you say, focus on what we know or is knowable and come to a workable resolution to the problem.
Do you think the scientific consensus of allowing abortions for fetuses that aren't viable is alright? Isn't this pragmatic and also moral within the limits of our knowledge?
And that non-person status extends to infancy now, apparently.
Is not an answer to the question, is a dodge
Quoting tim wood
I asked at the start that this be assumed for the sake of arguing this concept - because it has to be for the concept to apply. If the child is not a moral actor - the concept is absurd. - Again - if one is not willing, just for sake of exploring this concept, to play along with that - fine.
Quoting tim wood
for the existence of the fetus - seemed to follow to me
Quoting tim wood
really - i have put forth the 2 major - non person hood arguments on the topic. Published, referenced and seriously argued for 30 years. I have given the premises, and the conclusions. And at least to my POV have not had a reasoned objection on this thread.
It appears to me your definition of doing philosophy is agreeing with you.
No.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I already tried, including in the very post you are quoting from. Without further input, I have nothing to add to that.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I don't realize. I suspect you find the combination of intentional pregnancy and implied consent contradictory? I don't know how many women explicitly state their consent to carry a child to term during sex, but I somehow doubt it's very many.
Quoting Rank Amateur
This is just weird. Is there a "not" missing somewhere?
Quoting Rank Amateur
But if there are degrees of responsibility that correspond (possibly among other factors) to the degree of certainty of a risk, it seems to follow that there is a level of risk that corresponds to practically zero responsibility. That is the responsibility is so ephemeral that it cannot support any moral obligation.
I am having trouble attaching a consequence as significant as several months of unwanted pregnancy, and then giving birth, to sex, even unprotected sex. Of course small errors can have life-changing consequences under various circumstances. But these consequences are usually the result of having to alleviate damage done, not to create some desirable state of affairs.
Yes it should be.
So we are NOT responsible for the direct and predictable results of our act of free will because a butterfly flapped it wings in Argentina?
I understand that is your belief, and that is 100 pct fine. But that is not argument.
I think we have been back and forth enough on this -
these are the types of exchanges with you on this topic - that i find frustrating.
You say
"In any case, my consent is linked to my intention. Consent is an intentional act, and implied consent needs to conserve that intentionality, either by reference to another intention I do actually have, or by reference to an intention I would presumably have formed, had I been aware of the options."
— Echarmion
then I respond
"So, are we relieved of the responsibility of our acts of free will, simply by them not being intended? I didn't want to hit that car as I ran the red light, my intention was only to save a few minutes."
and you just say
No.
it is like "who's on first " ( hope you get the reference )
If the consequences are direct and predictable, then one is responsible. It's when the consequences are neither that there is a problem.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Well what else am I supposed to answer if I talk about consent and you talk about responsibility? I can see no connection between what I wrote and your interpretation.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Sure, it's not an argument. But I don't claim I can easily resolve the issue. As it stands, I see several problems for the stance that, barring special circumstances, carrying a child to term is a moral obligation.
First, the moral position of the foetus is questionable, particularly in early pregnancy.
Second the notion that the act of having sex entails responsibility for the dependency of the resulting foetus treats sex like a wrongful act towards that foetus. It seems to suppose that the person the foetus will eventually turn into already existed in an abstract form, waiting to be born. And now that you have put this person into the sorry state of dependence on a womb, you must help them out. Needless to say, this is odd.
And third even if the responsibility is established, we need to establish that it's actually significant enough, in the specific case, to warrant the imposition of an unwanted pregnancy.
So yes, I don't have an ironclad argument against a moral obligation against abortion. But on the other hand, I haven't seen an ironclad argument in favor, either. Given that there are significant hurdles such an argument would have to take, I think my position is somewhat reasonable.
No, the main issue is the ethics of abortion. I don't connect the two in the way that others are doing.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't think so.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't judge it based on viability. But I do think that abortion is acceptable under the conditions I've mentioned previously. Though it's nothing to celebrate. And, with some exceptions, those who conceived it bear responsibility.
If you're interested in a good test for that, instead of just picking apart his logic, then here it is again:
If they fail the test, then they ought to carry through to birth.
If the results are direct and predictable, there is no problem with responsibility. If they are neither - like a butterfly effect - then there is a problem..
Quoting Rank Amateur
Well, what else am I going to respond if you rephrase my statement to say something entirely different? I was talking about consent. You talked about responsibility. Different words with different meanings.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Sure, it's not an argument. I am not sure on the exact outcome of the question given the premises.
That said, it is my impression that a complete argument in favor of a moral obligation towards carring a child to term faces significant problems.
First, the moral standing of the foetus is questionable, particularly in early pregnancy.
Second, in order to establish a responsibility for the well being of that foetus, we need to somehow connect it's dependence on the mother to an act of her. But the only act that is apparently available is the act of conception, and at that point the person that is supposedly impacted by that act does not exist. That is unless we assume they already existed as some kind of spirit waiting to be incarnated.
And third, even if we ignore these points, as we have done so far, it's still not clear just how much we can demand from the mother based on her responsibility, and it seems we need to examine specific cases.
So while I cannot argue that it's impossible to construct a sound argument, I haven't seen one, either. But perhaps I have not looked enough.
Is pregnancy as a result of sex the former or the later ?
We know what we are talking about -
I say there is a responsibility
You say no - Butterfly effect
I say really -
You say as above
This is really hard to continue with
Quoting Echarmion
for like the 4th time, this is an assumption in the concept we are discussing, has to be - if the fetus has no moral standing - there is no need for tacit consent - the woman can do as she sees fit. If we want to discuss the concept this has to be an assumption.
This is really hard to continue with
Quoting Echarmion
Really - there is the whole have sex thing
Quoting Echarmion
There is zero logic in this. How does conception, and that being come into existence - for now the 5th time for the sake of this argument we have to assume has moral standing, oh yea i remember - sex
Quoting Echarmion
With this I agree. In this example it is a case of competing rights, and the answer would in many cases be dependent on the individual circumstances. For example life of the mother, serious or permanent damage to the mother, the prospect of a servery handicapped child. etc etc. But none of that matters if the there is no tacit approval. Without it, the mother has absolute autonomy over the use of her body with regard to the fetus.
he and they ( one by the way was a pro choice argument) does no such thing, and i have explained your error in on this point a few times.
But just take a dispassionate step back, you are saying the most published, argued, and referenced arguments on the topic for the last 30 years, are the equivalent of
Quoting tim wood
does that really make sense to you ? Has the world of serious argument on this topic missed the point you are making for 30 years ? And only you Tim Wood has seen it. Or, is it just possible, the rest of the world has found some reason to continue to discus this argument because it has some merit.
seemed to have missed your point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml
https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/2/119
https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/2/119
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Marquis_abortion_outline.htm
https://arcdigital.media/misunderstanding-marquis-ba6242d0d873
https://arcdigital.media/misunderstanding-marquis-ba6242d0d873
and in maybe the single best serious book on the subject “ A defense of Abortion” by David Boonin
he refers to FOV argument as “ the most significant potentiality argument for the immorality of abortion” and then goes on with his argument against - which I have shared with you - somehow – he missed it too.
Again take a deep breath - if all of these people have missed your point in an argument that has lasted 30 years, shouldn't you, just as a thoughtful person - only for the briefest of moments consider the possibility you could - dare i say - be wrong.
if originality was a requirement on this forum it would require much less band width
Quoting tim wood
and the difference between " burden to --- an expense he created" and responsibility is ???
Agreed. And since we do not seem to be getting anywhere, I think it's time to quit for the time being. I cannot seem to get my point across to you, and your responses often don't make sense to me.
Perhaps some other participant will be able to make a better case.
And it isn't; or rather, its needs are far outweighed by those of the woman.
Based on what objective criteria?
Excuse me for jumping in here, but you aren't actually suggesting that the possible consequences of unprotected sex are a big mystery, are you?
You're right that the foetus is not a moral actor. You get a gold star for that. I'll swap "needs" for "concerns" and say that concerns relating to the woman don't necessarily outweigh concerns relating to the foetus.
Also, I find it kind of funny how you're targeting weaker opponents and avoiding the more challenging ones. I do that sometimes as well. :smirk:
No, I was only establishing the boundaries of responsibility in general. Which, thinking about it, might have been confusing.
I think a case can be made that a pregnancy resulting from protected sex is sufficiently unlikely that the responsibility is too minor to base significant consequences on it.
Yes, but that would change if it resulted in pregnancy. And I don't really get why you'd switch the focus to protected sex. Isn't the point to consider the arguable counterexamples, and to focus on those which seem the strongest? A stronger counterexample against someone who is either rejecting or trying to underplay the responsibility involved would be a couple who don't really care that much about protection or the possible consequences of having unprotected sex. If that ends up resulting in an abortion, then I'd say that they're sure as hell responsible.
Huh? I don't understand what you mean.
Quoting S
Arguable counterexamples to what? My theory of responsibility? I am not rejecting the responsibility involved, I just argue that the circumstances matter.
I haven't yet formed a full argument on the morality of abortion. I take the easy way out and just poke at other people's arguments. One of the things I am poking at is that "they are responsible for the results of their actions" is not a sufficient argument. Not all results of an action carry responsibility, and just establishing responsibility does not allow one to attach any consequence.
That an adult woman deserves more respect than a cyst.
Quoting S
Such a position shows a lack of respect for the woman.
I don't know if you are addressing Rank or me, or both of us. Nor can I tell if the weaker opponents(sic) are foetuses or folk who have submitted posts here.
Quality.
Well, no; if they fail the test they are legally so required. That has nothing to do with a moral imperative.
I understood your point to be that a couple shouldn't be held anywhere near as morally responsible for [i]creating[/I] a pregnancy if they took the right the precautions, like the guy wearing a condom. I agree with that. But in response to that, my point is that they're still very much morally responsible for what they do regarding the pregnancy [i]going forward[/I].
Quoting Echarmion
Okay.
Quoting Echarmion
Well, your poking doesn't seem to have done much, at least not in relation to [i]my[/I] position on the relevance of responsibility. There are some clearcut cases where they're very much morally responsible for the results of their actions, and there are some clearcut cases - as you've pointed out - where they're not anywhere near as morally responsible for the results of their actions, and either way, they're very much responsible for what they do going forward, which is what ultimately matters.
So? Irresponsible women shouldn't be given the same level of "respect".
I was addressing you, you silly goose. Rank's comment was only there to provide context.
Quoting Banno
Obviously it does if that's being used as your moral criteria, and funnily enough, that's exactly what I'm using as my moral criteria, as I've explained multiple times. Even a foetus has a bigger attention span.
Why are you talking about cysts? That's very misleading, given that abortions aren't necessary until around eight weeks, and that at around eight weeks it's a foetus, not an embryo, and obviously not a cyst. Cysts don't have eyes, arms, legs, and a beating heart. In fact, it's even possible for a human foetus to have a cyst, much like an adult human can. (Source).
Ah, okay. No disagreement here.
Quoting S
This whole line of argument is only really relevant if you want to base the morality of the decision for or against abortion on previous choices the mother made. The way I understand your argument, you do not concern yourself with any such construction. To you (and please correct me if I am wrong here), the foetus has value, and that value is sufficient to warrant it's protection over the interests of the mother.
The answer that comes to mind regarding that position is that, if anyone is to judge the value of the foetus, it's the parents. You are welcome to have your own opinion, but if you're going to judge their judgement your reasons must be applicable in general.
Only in certain cases: those that fail the moral test, namely the Abortion Act 1967.
Quoting Echarmion
Oh god no. Parents can be extremely irresponsible. They shouldn't get free rein in every case.
Their responsibility isn't the issue though, is it? They just need to make a value judgement. If you're going to say their judgement is wrong you are going to have to say why.
Sure, responsibility is only an issue if there is value in the first place. But I find it almost incomprehensible to see either no value or such little value in the foetus to warrant little-to-no responsibility when it comes to terminating it, which means killing it, ending its life. It's human, it's alive, it has the potential of becoming a baby, infant, child, teenager, and adult. In fact, on that point, it's common to refer to a foetus as a baby, or by a gender specific pronoun, or by its given name, or by an endearing term. The terms being used in this discussion are technical and impersonal. Each and every one of us was a foetus at one point. It resembles us and shares features with us, such as eyes, arms, legs, and a beating heart. People can judge value differently, but I find some of those judgements repulsive and abhorrent, such as judging it to be acceptable to drown kittens in a river or at an even more extreme end, exterminating Jews. There's a scale, and for me at least, irresponsible abortion is on there somewhere.
Unfortunately, there are extremists who make comparisons with cysts or advocate absolute freedom. There are also extremists at the other end of the spectrum. That kind of thinking is harmful.
Tell me about it!
Quoting tim wood
Or maybe you're full of it and that's a downright condemnable suggestion if directed at me. The last recourse of a desperate and emotional ideologue. This is why leftists get a bad reputation. You're letting the team down.
Quoting tim wood
I wish you would stop repeatedly asking me these frankly stupid questions like "Who decides?". If only you could be conditioned in some way. Ah! Have you tried using the elastic band technique? You put it around your wrist, and then every time you feel the urge to ask a stupid question, you give it a pull and let go so that it pings back, creating a painful sensation.
What do you think we're here for? And why should I repeat myself regarding what I consider to be irresponsible and why? Pay closer attention. Think on it some more.
Quoting tim wood
You can ask Banno what he meant by "respect". That's why I put it in scare quotes. I could venture a guess though. Something along the lines of treating someone how they ought or deserve to be treated, but obviously we're not a hive mind on that one.
Quoting tim wood
Can you please put a bit more thought into your questions and react in a less knee-jerk way? That would be helpful. Abortion is not the same thing as other methods of birth control. The topic is abortion. The clue is in the title. Once again, the funny thing is, you're the one who created this discussion. You're the one who wrote the title.
I certainly don't consider women to be second-class citizens or that only men should decide their fate. That's crazy, and even interpreting my comment in that way is [i]way more[/I] sexist than the way that I think about these issues, which is that gender is and should be irrelevant. Banno has done the same sort of thing. It really is a dirty and shameful tactic.
It doesn't matter that she's a woman and I'm a man, it wouldn't matter if she were a man and I were a woman, or if we were both women, or if we were both men. It's a people problem, and it's more specifically an irresponsible people problem. Obviously men can't get pregnant, but even so, I've said that [i]the couple[/I] should be held responsible, with some exceptions like rape obviously.
Quoting tim wood
It only appears that way to you because of how you interpreted it. Remember the principle of charity?
Quoting tim wood
You do remember that we've been over your style of questioning before, though? You bombard me with questions that are perhaps rhetorical, and seem really inappropriate. I've answered them in a literal manner and sarcastically. What is your purpose in repeatedly asking me questions like, "Who decides?". Are they purely rhetorical, and is your purpose to defeat me through exasperation at your tactic of repeated bombardment of the same point over and over and over again? Or are they literal, and is your purpose to defeat me through your tactic of attempting to get me to repeat my answer until I'm sick to death and give up?
By "given" I meant judged or treated as. I don't think that irresponsible people (who happen to be women if we're talking about a pregnant person) should be judged or treated in exactly the same way as responsible people. And don't jump to conclusions about what that might entail. Instead of jumping to conclusions, review what I've already said, and give it some thought, and try to be charitable. Or, failing that, at least ask me to clarify.
This irresponsible vs. responsible is a pretty basic point in ethics. Like you said, I'm not too sure why people lose their minds and throw basic ethics out of the window when it comes to abortion. Do you disagree with this basic point? Maybe you do. I consider that to be extreme liberalism which goes too far, it goes beyond good sense, and this is coming from someone with very socially liberal views, generally.
Quoting tim wood
Ahhhh! But I have addressed them already! Look back over our discussion! :rage:
The kind of questions I was referring to are the, "By whose authority?", "Who are you to judge?", "Whose business is it?", "Who decides?", sort of questions. Have you forgotten my answer? Be honest.
The rest of your post is dismissive and, ironically, insubstantial. We're nearing the end of our discussion if you continue like this, because I admit that you're doing my head in.
If the value I see in a foetus really is so alien to you, so unfathomable, despite talking about what we have in common, and in a way which is more appealing to emotion, then maybe we should just end this. I don't want to waste my time. I'd be a little disgusted though. Wouldn't you be at least a little disgusted at someone who didn't understand seeing kittens as valuable, and thought that it was a man's right to drown kittens if he wants to, because wanting is enough? Now, before you kick off, I'm not suggesting that these situations are equal, it's just an attempt to get you to understand my perspective to at least some extent.
I haven't even read it! :lol:
The Abortion Act seems good enough to me. All I know about Roe v Wade is that it was a landmark legal case which set a precedent about abortion in the US, and that it's probably similar to the Abortion Act. What's the difference? And who cares if there's no big difference? You mentioned the [i]two[/I] doctors thing, but I don't see that as a big difference.
But I made it really easy! Look, since this is about ethics more than law, I'll change the reference to law into a reference to morality, and I'll just give you the part that I think is most relevant. This should take less than a minute to read:
Quoting tim wood
It's either lacking or is more ambiguous. Where is the above? Look, it's really simple: if it doesn't have the above, then I don't think that it's as good. The bit about two doctors rather than one is of little importance, relatively speaking, so forget about that. I would be willing to compromise, if need be, on the two doctors part and settle for a single doctor instead.
The important part is the part that I underlined.
so I am sure you are right, but I have gone back over those links I sent you - and I can't find the quoted line above in them -
Or am i reading your post incorrectly.
is this part "Marquis makes the points that:..." not sure what the .... part is, from the links, and are you adding the
Alas, he never did, he merely assumed them, and he clearly says that he was assuming them.
which if this is the case, you are just once again making the same point over and over and over again -
but to address your point yet again.
In a syllogistic argument, the person making the argument states propositions they claim to be true, and if those propositions are true - lead to a logical conclusion.
If one believes the propositions are false, he argues back your proposition is false, because ....
If i understand your unique objection to this 30 year old argument is:
The proposition that people like you and i have a future that we value, and the the unjustified taking of that future is a significant harm to us.
When applied to the fetus is in effect begging the question
And is the equivalent of a proposition of there are flying pink horses in the air, therefor there are flying pink horses in the air.
When we did this the first time, i countered with, it is not the same thing, because i claim your proposition is false - because i looked outside and there are no pink horses in the air. Since your proposition is false, your argument fails. But it fails because your proposition is false. If you said I propose that sometimes there are clouds in the sky, therefor sometimes there are clouds in the sky. Your argument would be not be false -
So, if you think Marquis' propositions are false, you need to show how they are false. Where this got us before was - no I had to prove to you the proposition was true for you to accept it. Which is not what an argument is, otherwise every argument ever made can be defeated with the universal objection
Your proposition is false, because i don't believe it and I don't have to tell you why, and until you convince me it is still false so there ...
at least that is my understanding where we are on this point.
We can call it a child, if you want. I am not squeamish about the terms. But I think the reason to use technical terms in a discussion such as this one is to avoid the connotations that come with the more common terms, which can distort an argument.
Quoting S
But the feelings you have when confronted with a certain judgement only tell us about you, not about the judgement. You may well not drown the kittens, or kill the child, when it is your decision to make. But when it's someone else's decision to make, you presumably want to also tell them "you should not drown those kittens, you should not kill that child". If you then tell them "because it would cause me negative feeling" or "Because I would not do it", whether or not they listen will depend entirely on whether they value you as a person. Which is to say they're going to make a decision about you, not about kittens or children.
Since we all live in a society, and usually have some say about where that society is headed, we need to differentiate between what we would like to do and what we would like other people to do. "I would do X, so everyone should do X" is the attitude of either a god or a petty tyrant.
Oh yes, I completely agree. That's why I've been using the technical terminology. But that was just a reminder of what's being left out, and the effect that leaving it out can have. There are people here who are giving out the impression that the experience is alien and unrelatable. It's almost like they've forgotten or are just pretending to be all cold and robotic.
Quoting Echarmion
But it's all about value judgements, or that's what it boils down to anyway, however you look at it, whether we talk about mine or theirs or in relation to this or that. There's no way around that. I could only try my best to get them to see things my way. And I'm sure I could do much better than how you've envisioned the exchange!
Quoting Echarmion
But liberalism has its limits, wouldn't you agree? I'm very socially liberal, but you ought to have some red lines. Don't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Don't have unprotected sex if you're not willing to accept the possible consequences or if you have an uncaring or blasé attitude about abortion. The former is immoral and against the law. The latter is immoral, but not against the law. That seems right to me.
Ah. So your writing is really that bad. OK.
Yes.
Quoting tim wood
Sigh. Do you have to be so pedantic?
Better?
Quoting tim wood
Sigh. We've been over this already and I told you that it was relatively unimportant. I don't wish to argue over this.
Quoting tim wood
No, that simply doesn't follow, and it doesn't indicate that you're thinking about this imaginatively. Our health service would act within their power to prevent that from happening, as this link confirms.
Quoting tim wood
It really does. Just read into it, my knowledge only goes so far, and I don't want to just transfer information from some other source across to you each time you don't understand something. I'm not a doctor at all, let alone one who specialises in this area. I expect that they'd be in a much better position to explain this sort of stuff to you.
I'm tired, it's late here, and I have to do some preparation before flying out to Budapest later, so I'm going to cut it short, at least for now, and maybe revisit this at a later time.
Another brilliant contribution to the discussion there, Banjo. :clap:
Only as brilliant as that one “S”assy. And this one.
Ok, you are right the proposition is not conditional. It is "the car has an engine" , If you wish to argue it, you say, "the car does not have an engine because....."
You want to say, the car does not have an engine, because I don't believe it has an engine, and I don't have to tell you why, so until you can convince me, to my satisfaction, there is an engine. There is no engine just because-
So the argument fails because you say so.
But can we not do this about flying horses and cars, what is the specific proposition in Dr Marquis argument you want to claim is false, and why.
This stands.
The FOV argument has ben shown to be in error. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/250662)
The notion of predictable consequences as a way of forcing a pregnancy to term just doesn't get started. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/251717)
And @Bitter Crank did an excellent summation of what is actually motivating this discussion.
Patriarchy, misogyny, xenophobia.
So, what else we got?
@S's writing is inconsequential. @Inis was banned for being a bit of a dick.
Time to move on?
Boring Banno's blithering balderdash backfires believably before bringing birdbrained buffoonery.
Boring Banno's blind brevity barely beats bloviation but bequeaths bother.
You changed the argument into what you want it to say so it doesn't work, and then say see it doesn't work. That is just garbage.
At the time I told you there is nothing at all in the FOV argument that makes any claim of personhood, it was the whole point of the argument.
You defeat of FOV argument is completely in your head.
But don't feel bad, what you did is the very heart of most pro choice arguments.
The fetus is not a moral actor, because (fill in some arbitrary criteria- modified so it only applies to the fetus), now since it is not a moral actor we can kill it.
Yes, that's what the argument pretends. But P1 assumes the foetus is a person; or the argument fails by illicitly deriving an ought from an is.
Your insistence that it's all biology and yet it tells us what we ought do is clearly the naturalistic fallacy.
You use "people like us" to hide personhood. It's the killing of a person that is wrong, not the killing of a human.
Hence, it is acceptable to switch off life support when the person is no more.
Here is the whole logic of the argument
First- you have to show killing born humans is morally wrong, because if it is not immoral to kill born people you can't argue it is immoral to kill the unborn.
Next, it makes the case the major harm done when killing the born is the loss of their future, which they value
Next it just makes a pure biological argument that links a time line between born humans to the unborn humans they were at one time.
And says, that human organism has a future, just as we all had a future at the same exact time in our development
And says, if an unjustified taking of a future is immoral, it is immoral all the time, and the stage of development does not matter
That is the whole logic of the argument, and it has nothing to do with personhood, nothing
Persons.
But it had nothing at all, about fetuses, they are not even mentioned in p1. ALL P1 SAYS IS IT IS IMMORAL TO KILL PEOPLE LIKE US, BORN HUMAN BEINGS. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
After pages and pages what I have come to realize is that for many they don't care what the argument says, they disagree with it because they disagree with it. So much for philosophy.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I don't see how you can say that it is not about persons, and about persons, at the same time. hence:
Quoting Banno
It's not immoral to kill what is human. If it were, then bleeding would be immoral.
It is not immoral to kill a human being. If it were, turning off life support would always be immoral.
It is immoral to kill a person.
Your pretend argument works by sliding from person in P1 to human in P7.
It is immoral to kill human beings except when it is moral. If we collectively dislike a group or individual enough, then it's OK, desirable, even mandatory to kill human beings. Usually a trained group of people are detailed with the task, and we support the troops with our taxes.
I may not like that arrangement, but it seems to be an exceedingly well established set up. Just about everybody approves of the properly presented war. Just about everybody agrees that killing to protect one's property is OK. Self-defense, sure -- fire away. Just like nobody doesn't like Sara Lee, nobody doesn't like certain kinds of killing. People who are opposed to abortion on the grounds that persons are being killed could at least be consistent and be committed Quakers. 99 times out of 100 they are not.
My God, for the now 5th time. The major assumption he is making is, that the nature of what a fetus is, is a determining factor in if abortion is or is not moral. It does NOT assume anything other than, if the fetus is such a thing as would make abortion moral, OK, or if the fetus is such a thing as would make abortion immoral OK.
All that assumption is saying, and why it is first in the argument is, before I make a case about what the nature of the fetus is, we need to assume that the nature of the fetus has something to do with the morality or immorality of abortion.
Your continued inability to understand this rather easy point of logic is pure ignorance, arrogance or obstinance take your pick.
You believe what you believe because you believe it. So much for philosophy.
Something is very wrong when 1 in 5 pregnancies in the us ends in abortion. Any one who finds that acceptable has lost their compass.
Quoting Rank Amateur
That's shit. You use the euphemism "people like us" to refer to what has moral standing; I use "person". Then you reduce the worth of "People like us" to their future, as if their past, their relations with others, their desires, loves, regrets, passions, and every other facet that makes a person more than a foetus were as nothing. Then you pretend to derive an ought from the is of a foetus having a future.
The argument is artless.
A person is human tissue. But not all human tissue is a person.
He is going to make an argument about the nature of the fetus
Before he starts he is asking the reader to assume that before he goes on, the nature of what a fetus is has something to do with the morality or immorality of killing it.
If the reader can not grant that whatever a fetus is, has no bearing on the morality or immorality of abortion he can stop reading.
That's it.
This is a simple concept, and now you are so committed to your completely baseless and inane position you will fight it to the bitter end, instead of a simple admission that you are misreading the assumption.
According to the Guttmacher Institute (fertility and sex education is their bailiwick)... At 2014 abortion rates, one in 20 women (5%) will have an abortion by age 20, about one in five (19%) by age 30 and about one in four (24%) by age 45.5. These figures represent a decline to a low, not an increase, over the last 40 years. 1980 was the high point in abortions.
Quoting Banno
Quoting Rank Amateur
Of course we are hypocritical and inconsistent, and that seems to be built into the human condition. We just can't avoid hypocrisy and be consistent with ourselves. We are not inherently consistent beings. We can try, but...
Quoting Rank Amateur
Yes, something is wrong: We are doing a piss-poor job of sex education and pregnancy prevention education. Both of which are a critical piece of "life education" which we don't do very well at either. Still, even well-informed people engage in sex without pregnancy prevention in place, and women get pregnant who would really rather not have.
I don't think it's terrible that women abort pregnancies the Plan B or early abortions (before 21 weeks). It is terrible when the possibility of getting a safe abortion is precluded. Do you think that "Every child a wanted child." is a bad slogan? I think it's good. Couples who bring a wanted baby home are going to do a much better job of caring for this child. (I'm in favor of couples raising children, too. Two parents are better than 1, two breadwinners are better than 1, two role models (male/female) are better than the model of one person only, etc.
I think abortion, as a method of birth control, is a symptom of a rather complicated web of social issues and pressures. I don't believe anyone at the time of Roe vWade, would have imagined that since then, there have been over 60 million abortions done in the US. That is a hard number to grasp. If 60 million names were put on the Vietnam memorial wall, it would stretch for 50 miles.
I believe at the beginning of legal abortion the premise was they would be rare, a last resort, and a lesser evil than having those rare cases seek illegal abortions. That changed. Sex has changed, some for the better, some for the worse. Sex has become more transactional, comoditized, since the pill made the prospect of sex without responsibility a possibility.
What happened was, once abortion becomes available, it becomes the most attractive option for everyone around the pregnant woman. If she has an abortion, it’s like the pregnancy never existed. No one is inconvenienced. It doesn’t cause trouble for the father of the baby, or her boss, or the person in charge of her college scholarship. It won’t embarrass her mom and dad.
Abortion is like a funnel; it promises to solve all the problems at once. So there is significant pressure on a woman to choose abortion, rather than adoption or parenting.
But that’s an illusion. Abortion can’t really “turn back the clock.” It can’t push the rewind button on life and make it so she was never pregnant. It can make it easy for everyone around the woman to forget the pregnancy, but the woman herself may struggle. Life stretches on after abortion, and generally the only person who worries about her irreversible choice is the woman.
Abortion is pro men, pro power, pro all the people around the mother who perceive their life will be inconvenienced by a child. Who want a do over for that responsibility free sex society promised them.
What awful pressure we are putting on woman when we now have a tug of war between a woman and her baby. It may be the first time in history when mothers and children have been assumed to be at odds. We’re supposed to picture the child attacking her, trying to destroy her hopes and plans, and picture the woman grateful for the abortion, since it rescued her from the clutches of her own child. This is an aberration of reality.
This is a fiction, caused by a societal revolution in the last 50-60 years. Much of it good, some of it with a cost. And woman are paying a high price.
We had somehow bought the idea that abortion was necessary if women were going to rise in their professions and compete in the marketplace with men. But how had we come to agree that we will sacrifice our children, as the price of getting ahead? When does a man ever have to choose between his career and the life of his child?
Abortion indisputably ends a human life. But this loss is usually set against the woman’s need to have an abortion in order to freely direct her own life. It is a particular cruelty to present abortion as something women want, something they demand, they find liberating. Because nobody wants this. No woman wants to have an abortion. But once it’s available, it appears to be the logical, reasonable choice. All the complexities can be shoved down that funnel. Yes, abortion solves all the problems; but it solves them inside the woman’s body. And she is expected to keep that pain inside for a lifetime, and be grateful for the gift of abortion.
No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.
Essentially, we’ve agreed to surgically alter women so that they can get along in a man’s world. And then expect them to be grateful for it.
What abortion has become is just a new form of oppression of women.
60 million abortions since Roe is the butcher bill we are paying for our continued oppression of women. Society says we should have responsibility free access to their bodies, and when responsibility and all the fear and uncertainty that comes with it does happ, we do violence on the woman's body to make every one around the woman's life easier.
That is what abortion has morphed into. Money and power have just turned it into a well marketed, readily available, means of oppression of women.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Agree
I think every child is a child is better
But it does point to how badly we as a people need to distort biology and logic to justify abortion.
Examples:
Pro choice people will say there is no such thing as a potential person, but the pospect of how that potential person will affect their life is why they are having an abortion.
Unwanted children are bad, so we should kill them. We just need to do it at a point in their development where it is easier to justify.
Unborn humans are not persons, because ( fill in the arbitrary criteria), and since they are not persons we can kill them. Not the philosophic, but the "legal" concept of personhood has been human societies go to method of carving off a class of people, so we can do things to them we can't do to real persons like us.
A new and unique human life doesn't begin after the process of conception. And even if it does that doesn't matter.
If you want to do better though, you have to change the form if your argument and hence the type of value judgement you make. Your judgement on X and your judgement on someone else's judgement on X are different. If you don't make this distinction, you make every moral argument about yourself. But you certainly are not so self centered as to assume you are the ultimate moral authority.
Quoting S
Sure it has limits. But how are those limits established? Not by simply deciding what *I* would do and applying that to everyone else.
This is a rather novel argument against abortion. I haven't seen a college scholarship administrator connected to abortion before. Very creative.
Most abortions are performed early on. According to the CDC, 66% of abortions are performed during the first 8 weeks, and 92% during the first trimester. There isn't any reason to suppose the boss, the loan officer, the Philosophy Department, Amazon.com, Bloomingdales, or anyone else would know about it.
Quoting Rank Amateur
This is a fairly radical reinterpretation of the idea that abortion is a woman's choice.
"Inconvenience" you say. You bet an unplanned, unwanted child is an inconvenience--especially for the mother who will be performing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to child rearing--an inconvenience lasting a couple of decades.
Quoting Rank Amateur
A man doesn't have to choose between his career and a child because, Rank Amateur--you may have noticed--men don't get pregnant. Men are not usually responsible for day-to-day childcare.
Women might have fewer abortions IF policy and practice in the United States really were pro-child, and pro-family. They are not. From pre-natal care to post-natal support to family leave to flexible work schedules to high-quality affordable day-care services, The US fails across the board.
The American working class (which is about 90% of the population) has experienced decades of economic decline. Affordable support services have become much harder to find, if they exist at all. For the mother and father to both work, most to all of one of their incomes will be devoted to day-care for the first 6 years. If the other spouse's income isn't enough for everything else (it often isn't) then the family falls into a downward spiral of rising costs and declining income, or a sacrifice of one of the spouses careers, or both, and other untoward consequences.
It is no wonder that couples choose to abort children they simply can not afford to have. For single working women, a child is a much more difficult proposition.
The idea that women should, as a regular practice, complete the pregnancy and give the newborn to an adoption agency, is a remarkably callous approach. So is your solution of requiring birth and then raising the child. Look: In the real world, raising more children than a couple has resources to support, is a very long, hard road with negative consequences entailed for everyone concerned--and that applies to couples that are very responsible, succeed in keeping their marriages together, are diligent and hard working, and don't self-destruct.
The rate of poverty, marriage failure, single parenthood, dysfunctional families, drug and alcohol abuse, and so on and so forth has been on an upward curve because of adverse economic trends for most people. Middle-aged working class white men in the rust belts and rural districts aren't committing suicide at remarkably high rates because they lack imagination and drive. The number of school children who do not know for sure who will feed them or provide them with a bed tonight is and has been on the rise because families are falling apart.
What was that line from Bill Clinton's campaign??? I think it was "It's the economy, stupid." When the economic foundation of the working class starts buckling, families and social networks start falling apart.
The connection to abortion? Abortion is the most affordable solution. Don't like abortion? Then work for a social democratic government that is capable of organizing economic resources for the benefit of the majority of the people--the 90%--rather than the 10% richest people.
I flatly reject the argument that pro-choice people think a fetus is not a potential person. This is a very, very flimsy argument.
OF COURSE a fetus is a potential person -- what else, by any definition, could it be? Where there is disagreement is whether it is a person yet. It becomes a weaker argument that a fetus is not a person in the 8th or 9th month of pregnancy, but in the first 20 weeks, there is insufficient neural development for anything like a person to exist. Even at the beginning of the 9th month, some religious definitions hold that that fetus is not yet a person -- not until the infant has drawn breath.
What pro-choice people are doing is weighing the potential person against existing persons, and finding in favor of the latter. Pro-life people are doing the opposite -- finding in favor of potential persons over existing persons. Both positions have political implications.
Completely agree
Quoting Bitter Crank
Completely agree
Quoting Bitter Crank
And, that is a shame
Quoting Bitter Crank
Completely agree
Quoting Bitter Crank
Completely agree, and this is very much what I was trying to say. And the person who is bearing the real emotional burden is the woman. The incredibly high rate of abortion is a symptom of some core problems of society. All these pressures you correctly point out, are not making abortion a choice, they are taking the choice away.
Seconded, very nicely put Bitter Crank.
Yes. A freshly fertilized egg is a potential person, and nowhere close to being an actual person. Personhood is best reserved for newborns who have developed muscles and lungs sufficient to breathe on their own. By that time they have normally developed neural complexity as well.
It does not seem counterfeit to me, but what would you prefer: person or tissue?
Secondly, the issue with the concept of personhood, is it is arbitrary, variable, and used with a prejudice toward the desired answer.
It always comes down to:
A fetus is not a person because it does not have trait X, Then someone will give an example of what we consider a person that does not have trait X, than trait X is modified so it only applies to the fetus.
Which turns the logic of the argument into, the fetus is not a person because it is not a person
In your case, a fetus is not a person until it has developed lungs to breathe air.
I come back, but there are many persons, who either through illness, or accident have lungs that do not work, and need outside assistance to breathe. They are still persons
And you would come back, modifying your point so it only applies to fetuses.
And once again the personhood argument ends in the same place it always does, a fetus is not a person because you say a fetus is not a person.
I could substitute "fetal viability" for "potential person". The result is pretty much the same: in place of 'potential person' I could say that the "fetus" is not viable at 24 weeks. I think we can all agree on what a fetus is, as well as earlier stages of development such as the blastocyst.
Are terms like "fetal viability" or "blastocyst" better for you?
My view is pure biology, at some point after the process of conception is complete, there is now a new and unique human, at exactly the correct state of human development commensurate with its age.
Where I do think there is a valuable discussion is a discussion on the competing rights of the fetus and the mother. Dr. Judith Thompson's pro choice argument is to me the best one. And while I believe I have a reasonable objection to it, it is not absolute.
As for personhood, as a philosophical concept it can have merit depending on the issue that is being discussed. As a legal concept, it has a long history of being used by those in power, to cleave off a group of people, so those in power can do things to them, they could not do to them if they were persons.
Tim: Your explanation has convinced me. I will strike "potential person" from my thinking on abortion. Fetus it is. (I would offer to strike "potential person" from my future thinking on abortion, but I haven't had those future thoughts yet, so they don't exist, and can not be edited.)
RA: You have also presented your idea clearly, and biology provides the best terminology.
I do not accept the idea that a blastocyst (a fertilized egg that has begun dividing (2, 4, 8, 16, 32...) is
Quoting Rank Amateur
The blastocyst is living human tissue--what else would it be--and so is a 5 month fetus. The problem is in the particle "a" or "the" which makes "human" a noun rather than an adjective. "A human" or "the human" is problematic at that stage of development.
If your view is pure biology, you would want to use human in the adjectival sense rather than the nounal sense.
So gentlemen, a logic question. If the fetus is not a potential person, and does not have a future, how than can it be a future burden on the mother, how can it have an effect on her future life she would want to avoid, how can it be a future burden on society?
It would seem you want your future cake, and eat it too.
Some fetuses that were not aborted are never satisfied.
Translation, the fetus can be whatever you want it to be to support your position.
Truer words....
is as good a translation of this :
Quoting tim wood
as anything.
It is a jumble of words without any meaning. You can think of the fetus as a possible person, but you cant think of them as a possible person if in doing so is in conflict with your opinion.
The paragraph is just a mess.
To justify the people we want dead? So the future value of people is what we care about, yes?
It seems to me that this point is still unaddressed by you. You claim academic authority to ignore the point about people, but even you use the plain language that makes the most sense of the arguments you're making -- that people's lives are at stake, according to yourself. So you skip the quagmire of personhood while still caring about future value in your argument because of the quagmire of personhood -- it's just unaddressed and assumed.
Quoting Moliere
you are taking that comment completely out of the context of the conversation I was having with bitter -
he said -
Quoting Bitter Crank
my response was
Quoting Rank Amateur
it was in response to the killings of war. etc.
does that help ??
I am more than happy to address any point in any argument I have made, but on such a long and scattered thread - if you could kind of clearly state the concept or issue you want me to address. With all the scattered words over all these pages - easy to find a few to highlight and argue. But I will do my best
Fair enough, and sorry for that. I wasn't reading closely enough. My thought was with respect to where I responded to you here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/250860
When I said --
Others have said the same, like @Banno, so I don't think I'm alone in my beffudlement. I'm trying to read you as charitably as possible, but I can't see why your argument is something we should care about unless it is the future of people we care about.
let me give it one more try.
The first premise of the argument is just about people like you and me. That is it. The point is to establish if is morally impermissible, without justification, to kill people like you and me, and one significant harm done to us by being killed is the loss of our future, which we value. This is the first premise because it would make no sense to argue the killing of the fetus is morally impermissible - before establishing that killing people like us is morally impermissible.
than the arguments establishes a pure biological time line between born people like you and me, and the unique human organism we were before we were born. Without break, in time and space in the world we live in you moliere can trace your existence directly back to a unique human organism that could only have ever been the thing we have come to call Moliere.
If there is a direct and unique time line to the past - each point on that line was at one point a future.
So that human organism had a future, and if without justification, taking a future is morally impermissible, abortion is morally impermissible.
The classic objections are - than this future should extend back to the sperm and egg and every possible of their combination - making contraception impermissible. That is countered back with it is concerned with a unique human organism. And there is no unique organism until shortly after conception
The next classic objection is, that because the fetus is unaware of its future, it does not value it. So abortion is permissible. That is countered with the concept of ideal desire, basically If you get hit by a car and do to the injury are unable to tell us you want medical assistance, we should assume if you were able to ask, you would desire medical treatment. If the fetus was able to tell you it desired to live, it would.
And the current twist on this last point made by David Boonin, and where it stands today is. One is not able to grant ideal desire to a being, until that being has the mental development to know what some desire is.
That is basically it.
My initial temptation was to jump down the "biological unique human organism" rabbit hole. But upon reflection I don't think I will because I can't help but feel that we don't really care about the biological facts of what constitutes an organism. We care about human beings. We don't care if the scientific world classifies such and such as an organism or not, which surely does not have in mind debates about good or evil in their classifications. Whether such and such achieves homeostasis, reproduction, or what-not is of theoretical interest only, and not moral interest.
Would you agree with that? Or not?
You are objecting to a claim not made in the argument.
But to save some time will try to address your points that are outside the argument. But to be very clear - none of this has anything at all to do with the FOV argument -
Quoting Moliere Because >>>>.
definitive statements are fine, but without a basis it makes it difficult to address.
Quoting Moliere
as do I, What is your definition of a human being ? Mine is rather easy, and purely biological.
Quoting MoliereQuoting Moliere
again - because ....
I understand the concept you are putting forth. Is it pure biology or biology plus something else that makes us persons. And if it is something else, is abortion morally permissible before that something else is there. The problem is, with only one exception that I know of. All such arguments turn into
a fetus is not a person, because it does not have trait X
I give you an example of something that is definitely a person, and does not have trait X
You modify trait X so it only applies to a fetus
factoring out the middle - the logic that is left is - it is ok to kill a fetus, because it is a fetus.
All such arguments are arbitrary and variable.
The exception is, an embodied mind, that you are not really you, and only exist as a biological entity until you are an embodied mind. This is a logical argument. The only issue is you are not an embodied mind until sometime in early childhood - so this allows for infanticide.
So what we really are left with, to argue against the the fetus' right to exist you have to ignore biology, and allow for some glaring logic failures.
I'd say that its claim is false. But furthermore, the falsity of this claim does not seem to matter for the argument. It's the future like ours that matters, not the biological description -- which is really only suited to species-level, rather than individual-level, description anyways. Biology doesn't make a descriptive claim on some individual about its status as an organism, but rather makes a claim based on the usual features of organisms generally -- and I suspect, like most scientific definitions, it is a working definition for the purposes of understanding life.
So we can put aside the biological description, I think. I'll ask again, though, just to be sure -- do you think this is true, or do you believe that biology is important to the future of such-and-such? Does the description matter at all?
To me it really doesn't seem to. I'd just say that such-and-such constitutes an organism some time after birth, so though the organ has a future like ours it still is not a unique human organism.
here is the entire argument from the original argument - it may or may not address your ambiguity issue - if not - then we have got to a good place to end -
A more obvious answer is better. What primarily makes killing
wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the
victim's friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of
one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer.
The loss of one's life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.
To describe this as the loss of life can be misleading, however. The change in my biological state does not by itself make killing me wrong. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities,projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have
constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by
me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change.
When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have
been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to
value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my
future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me
wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any
adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his or
her future.
How should this rudimentary theory of the wrongness of killing be
evaluated? It cannot be faulted for deriving an 'ought' from an 'is',
for it does not. The analysis assumes that killing me (or you, reader) is
prima facie seriously wrong. The point of the analysis is to establish
which natural property ultimately explains the wrongness of the killing, given that it is wrong.
A natural property will ultimately explain
the wrongness of killing, only if (1) the explanation fits with our
intuitions about the matter and (2) there is no other natural property
that provides the basis for a better explanation of the wrongness of
killing. This analysis rests on the intuition that what makes killing a
particular human or animal wrong is what it does to that particular
human or animal. What makes killing wrong is some natural effect or
other of the killing. Some would deny this. For instance, a divine command theorist
in ethics would deny it. Surely this denial is, however, one of those features
of divine-command theory which renders it so implausible.
The claim that what makes killing wrong is the loss of the victim's
future is, directly supported by two considerations. In the first place,
this theory explains why we regard killing as one of the worst of
crimes. Killing is especially wrong, because it deprives the victim of
more than perhaps any other crime. In the second place, people with
AIDS or cancer who know they are dying believe, of course, that
dying is a very bad thing for them. They believe that the loss of a
future to them that they would otherwise have experienced is what
makes their premature death a very bad thing for them. A better
theory of the wrongness of killing would require a different natural
property associated with killing which better fits with the attitudes of
the dying. What could it be?
Agree - can there only be one thing morally wrong with murder, is this and denying a future of value somehow mutually exclusive. Your point while interesting, in no way contradicts the denial of a FOV as a significant harm done by murder.
Quoting tim wood
Futue - what Tim wood will have if he doesn't get killed
Quoting tim wood
The point that the victim of murder isn't harmed because they are dead is inane. And no where in the argument does it say a dead person values anything, quite the contrary it say the dead person loses the future they value.
I am growing weary of rehashing this argument with you ad nauseam, and was happy to stop.
So I await your next waste of bandwidth and the insult that most definitely accompany it.
To the consideration of potential future, isnt there a presumption that the future is good? Wouldnt you have to consider a horrific, pain filled future as well? Also, what about considerations of the negative effects of carrying w child to term and then having it suffer through the system or end up as a criminal cuz they arent really wanted or somesuch? I may have missed this being addressed but it seems important to consider.
Saying there is no such thing as a future is exactly the same thing as saying there is no such thing as time. Taking your point to the absurd. I can stare at the clock on the wall, and imagine and speculate that the second hand will move one more time, and 1 second of my future will turn into the present , and 1 sec later it will be in my past.
Your point would make sense, if your point was what the future will be is unsure. But in the space time reality we live in there is no speculation that tomorrow will come, and unless you die or are killed you will be apart of it. That is your future.
Quoting tim wood
Can you apply this to the issue at question, please. Which is, the future is, tomorrow will happen, you, me and most everyone else in the world desires to be there for it, as opposed to not. If you want to apply an NPV calc to it. Take all the future things you are looking forward to, anticipating, all the time you will be spending with someone you love apply them year by year, give them a monetary value and than discount them back today - goodness knows what the discount rate would be.
I have done that for me, and the NPV of my future to me is priceless.
Quoting tim wood
FOV is not a difficult concept, and it is well argued in what i posted. It is as simple as you Tim Wood have a future, if you do not die, or are killed it, as a matter of pure fact it will happen. You value and desire that future for all the reasons that are important to you. I do not think the concept is very difficult.
Quoting tim wood
again - the future is real, as real as time.
Now after all that there is a major logic error in all of this, it is you only want to disallow considerations of the future as ethereal for the fetus, or where you think it helps your argument. Yet every reason some woman would consider an abortion is a projection of the future. The woman evaluating her future, she determines her future life, would be worse off with the future life she is carrying. And for what she wants her future to be, she denies the life inside her its future.
So according to you we don't have any real future, and the fetus doesn't have any real future - only the woman contemplating abortion has a real future.
the full comment was
It is as simple as you Tim Wood have a future, if you do not die, or are killed it, as a matter of pure fact it will happen
Which is pure fact.
"People like us". A foetus is not a "people like us". It's just human tissue. It lacks so much of what makes you and I. It is ridiculous to try to squeeze all of human dignity into a "future of value".
"A pure biological time line". What rubbish. People like us are valuable therefore the lump of human tissue from whence it grew is valuable... a butterfly is colourful therefore a caterpillar is colourful.
Or is it that I have understood it and still reject it.
no issue at all with that -
it makes no such claim - it makes no person hood claim about the fetus at all.
It is the most popular pro life argument in existence, it is all over the internet, I have done my best to explain it. If your have some real intellectual curiosity to understand an argument that is opposed to your beliefs - sure the internet can do a better job of laying out the argument than I can. Enjoy.
Don't take me for a fool. What are "People like us" if not people? The argument revolves around personhood. The pretence that it does not is part of what makes your approach so disingenuous.
You are reduces to an argument from popularity? Yep, those god-fearing priests and bishops have such a high regard for the sanctity of childhood; I'll go with them.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Probably.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Hm. Back at you.
all in your mind, and a lack of a dispassionate reading and understanding of the argument. If you want to do some heaving lifting and re state for me what your understanding is of the complete arguement I will respond, but I am weary of these wack a mole arguments.
Indeed, I am passionate. What makes your argument sinful is that it pretends to show that the life of a piece of tissue is valuable without mention of the woman on whom it is parasitic. It is symptomatic of the grossly distorted view of human dignity that falls from conservative theology. Misogynistic, homophobic, nasty stuff.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Here's the thing; any philosophical argument of the sort you provide is apt to be wrong. If you need to present something so convoluted in order to make your point, you have gone astray. You are using philosophy to suit your own agenda.
Here's the rub: a piece of tissue is not as important as a woman.
Now this will be obvious to anyone who does not have another agenda...
this is so tiresome - i have said at least 10 times and at least 5 to you - this is a second order discussion - even if the fetus is such a thing as it has a right to live. That does NOT NOT NOT mean it has a right to the use of the woman's body - different argument. And I have share the best pro choice argument for that on here, Dr. Judith Thompsons that would make YOUR case.
This thread is like groundhog day - it is like nothing that has already been said - ever happened
...and still you do not see the poverty of your reply. Indeed, it is tiresome. You seek to treat the foetus as if it were distinct from the woman. It isn't. Take it out and it is dead. And the reason you need to treat it a if it is distinct from the woman is that you wish to ascribe to it moral standing that it does not deserve.
MORALITY
morality itself - is there some level of morality that has a wide application, would be generally accepted as moral or immoral, or is all morality relative.
one must assume there is some generally accepted concept of morality to continue
IF ONE BELIEVES ALL MORALITY IS RELATIVE - STOP HERE
PERSONHOOD
The arguments about personhood are all arguments of if the biology of humans or something else give the fetus moral standing. Although often debated on forums like this - in large measure it has been abandoned in most academic and serious arguments on abortion. The reason for this is that for each criteria given there is a case where such a criteria is only used in the case of the fetus, and not used in the case of a born human. this is just a long series of begging the question.
There is one major exception. Dr. Singer continues to argue that it is not biology that makes us human, it is that we are embodied minds that make us human beings. He argues that this occurs somewhere in early childhood and as such would allow infanticide.
IF ONE BELIEVES NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS THAT A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON BECAUSE A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON - STOP HERE
FUTURE OF VALUE ARGUMENT (FOVA)
Despite the unsupported dismissals of the argument on the board. This argument is regarded almost universally by academics and serious critics both pro choice and pro life as the best argument about the morality of abortion. it is, because it is based on things that almost all believe are intuitively true, or on pure biological fact.
we do intuitively believe it is wrong to unjustly kill people like you and me
we do intuitively believe we will exist in the future and we value it. ( I have dinner reservations for next week - and keep a calendar)
It is a fact that some number of days after the process of conception there does exist a unique human organism
and it is a fact that if you leave it alone - it will exist in the future as only one thing a human like us.
this argument hinges on the concept of "Ideal desire" that it is reasonable to assume that those, who due to some handicap or circumstance are unable to overtly express their desire, would desire things that would be best for them.
The argument against this is that one must have at least some minor level of cognitive ability to be considered as meriting the concept of "ideal desire"
IF YOU BELIEVE THE CONCEPT OF IDEAL DESIRE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FETUS - STOP HERE
RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE MOTHERS BODY
Even if you believe that the fetus is a moral actor, that by itself does not de facto give it a right
to the use of the mothers body. The mother possesses bodily autonomy and she can decide to let the fetus use it, or not.
This argument hinges on the concept of implied consent. Does having sex as an act of free will with a known possible outcome being a fetus with moral standing that has a unique need for the use of your body establish an implied consent
IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO IMPLIED CONSENT - STOP HERE
That is really basically where the world is in the argument
NONE OF WHICH HAS MUCH OF ANYTHING AT ALL WITH IF ABORTION SHOULD OR
SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL.[/quote]
Here's the rub: A woman has far greater moral worth than a piece of tissue.
Let that be an end to it.
Quoting Banno
occasionally it would be nice if someone else would actually make a full argument with premises and conclusions that we could debate other than me. All I have gotten out of you is your zealous opinion - make a full argument to support it for once.
No one gets it but you huh? Still havent considered you are the one who might be wrong, and not listening, or understanding.
My argument in full: A woman has far greater moral worth than a piece of tissue.
That you need more than this to suport your point is one way you demonstrate a lack of integrity.
Doesnt that imply that the women is at risk? Thats not always the case, and then your argument no longer works.
Her moral worth gives her authority? Does this apply to other people as well? I have moral worth therefore I have authority over others?
Your argument fails until you add a distinction that the life is of no moral value.
Just playing devils advocate, I actually am on your side in this. I do not bemieve in santity of life at all.
I guess I must be lol
In what way do you mean?
Ive never heard those terms made distinct in that way before.
So how does it follow from that distinction that you have an imperative to make a choice willy nilly? Isnt what you just described as imperative precisely NOT making a choice?
For me, I bypass most of the argueing about abortion by removing the basis that life has a sacred value. Absent that, there isnt much to debate.
Not aborting on grounds of future potential of any kind seems flawed, Hitler was a baby and before that a fetus and on down the chain of personhood....his future potential we all know. That would have been a great abortion, perhaps even a morally required abortion should a person of the tume somehow seen into the future potential. Alas, no such ability exists, so its best not to base a conclusion on something no one can possibly know in my book.
I understand, its the inclusion of “making a choice willy nilly” in an imperative description thats getting me...what is the imperative that results in a willy nilly choice rather than a normal choice?
Quoting tim wood
You assume correctly, life should be judged by its value/merit rather than its “sanctity”. For abortion, happy to let experts decide where the line is. I step on spiders, if the fetus is no more sentient than that then thats about how much I care if someone aborts it. That is, barely. Same with death penalty, as long as we are very careful about making sure the person actually did it I cant see why we would keep them alive because all life is somehow sacred.
I didnt know what willy nilly meant, thought it meant recklessly or with little thought. I get it now.
And yes.
Happy to have the post end, but your summary is self serving nonsense.
Which was, to your credit much better than Banno's
"My argument in full: A woman has far greater moral worth than a piece of tissue."
From my point of view, I made the only full argument about the morality of abortion, and in 24 pages, no one has made a significant dent in it. Which seems to infuriate you all.
Which, by the way it shouldn't. If or if not abortion is immoral has almost nothing at all to do with if it should or should not be legal. Which is all Roe v Wade is about.
That's immoral. It's obscene. It encourages acts that are sins against the woman involved.
Rank believes this because of his Catholicism, but is disingenuous in this, attempting to hide his beliefs in convolute argument reminiscent of the rantings of theologians.
Closing the thread will only mean that @Rank Amateur moves on to another. Perhaps there is an argument for keeping the thread open as a sandpit for his happy tantrums.
All morally permissible actions are not immoral.
Abortion is morally permissible
Therefore, abortion is not immoral.
If we keep this is up, we'll have this philosophy business resolved in no time.