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? — Michael

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. — Michael

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.

Put together the argument in full, please. I don't see how you're getting there.

Besides, it's a just a little outlandish to suggest that anyone who disagrees with Kant's ethics is immoral, don't you think?

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 — Hanover

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.

especially in light of the fact that many of those we consider "people" do not have the attributes you list. — Hanover

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?

Put together the argument in full, please. — S

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 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. — Hanover

I'm not making an argument from the law. I'm making an argument about what we value.

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.

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.

. 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. — Rank Amateur

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)

. 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. — Banno

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

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.

which you are almost making here, — Rank Amateur

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.

But here's a question for you: Do you think a blastocyst is a person? — Banno

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. — Banno

I'm yet to hear an answer to the question I asked you earlier. I'll remind you of our exchange.

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. — Banno

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

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?

sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. — Banno

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.

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.

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

Meh. I wouldn't criminalise abortion per se. A third trimester abortion would be a tragedy rather than a crime.

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.

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:

The only problem most people have with it, is it also allows infanticide. In general - that is a little offsetting — 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.

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.

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 — Banno

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.

...the fetus does not possess a great deal in the way of agency.

This is directly from the article.

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. — AJJ

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.

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.

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.