What about after 10 days when the blastocyst becomes an embryo, or after 10 weeks when the embryo becomes a foetus? — Michael

My opinion? Up until the end of the second trimester.

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? — Michael

They might be mistaken as to the facts right up until they act on their understanding. Then they are acting immorally.

My opinion? Up until the end of the second trimester. — Banno

So it’s acceptable to criminalise abortion after 28 weeks but immoral to criminalise abortion after 10 weeks?

They might be mistaken as to the facts right up until they act on their understanding. Then they are acting immorally. — Banno

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.

This is in contrast to an approach that gives priority to the foetus, ignoring the role of the woman. — Banno

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.

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? — tim wood

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

— tim wood

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

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 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. — Banno

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. — Andrew4Handel

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 a comparatively small 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? — Michael

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.

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. ,

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."

To be sure, killing unborn children, causing their death, has both been a crime and not been a crime in different places and at different times, but from that no right attaches to the unborn. SO my question again: where do you get your idea that the fetus has rights?

Ooops, gotta go!

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. — Banno

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.

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 — tim wood

have not made that case yet, will do.

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. — 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

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." — tim wood

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 my question again: where do you get your idea that the fetus has rights? — tim wood

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. — Banno

There's no point arguing with such an insane statement.

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.

It's so much easier to critique if you start by misinterpreting.

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.

However the point is just made as a given and not supported. — Rank Amateur

I find it extraordinary that you think a foetus has a moral worth anything like that of a person.

. The fetus is such a thing as has a right to life, — Rank Amateur

. I respect and appreciate the effort you're putting into this. May I suggest you slow down and chew a bit more. Your proposition seems unobjectionable - but it's my business to object. It's not me; call it the spirit of the sound argument. I have a right to life. But what does that mean? The US Declaration of Independence lists (the) three unalienable rights, the first of which is (the right to) life. But this is no positive right; it is merely a constraint - a legal constraint without itself having the power of law, but of advising law and its implementation - on those who might otherwise feel that my life was their's to take. A US soldier, for example, can certainly be ordered into harm's way, but not expressly to die.

That is, I have a right to life, but by no means an absolute right. Not at law, not in common sense. Probably the exact determination of that right depends on the circumstance in question. No court will rule in an abstract case.

So the claimed right of the fetus has yet to be determined, which is to say that the right itself is subject to the circumstance. And already the question of "right" is befogged.

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.

Here's a sketch of my approach. It runs alongside Roe (but is not Roe) because I think Roe is well-reasoned, near as I can tell (some people think it isn't, but none have cogent reasons for thinking so).

Before viability, the pregnancy is of no specific interest to the state. The state has a general interest in the health and well-being of the mother. Inasmuch as early termination is safer than going to term, the state has no interest in controlling as to abortion to protect the mother. After "early" term and before viability, approximately the second trimester, termination is not necessarily safer for the mother, so the state may take an interest in controlling as to abortion in the interest of maternal health. After viability, the state has an interest in protecting both mother and the viable fetus, and can control as to abortion, its conditions and exceptions.

This a sketch. And you may attack it. But not with presumptions themselves in question - that's an argument built on sand. But rather with facts persuasively argued. If you find Marquis's points, that he merely presumes, to be facts, then by all means argue them.

just occasionally it would be nice if you even make a feeble attempt at supporting one of your pronouncements

The entire argument is based on an unsupported assumption that the fetus is due lesser rights than the women. — Rank Amateur

Indeed, it is. Because a foetus is not a person.

just occasionally it would be nice if you even make a feeble attempt at supporting one of your pronouncements — Rank Amateur

Interesting. I think you protest too much. That is, your arguments are excessive.

Do you think a soul enters the baby at conception?

a soul, if such a thing is, is immaterial to my completely secular arguments.

Well, no.

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.

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.

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.