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? — Hanover

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?

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. — AJJ

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.

But just because I assume them does not mean that they're true — tim wood

agree - now that person says they are not true because . . . . .

or that in virtue of my assuming you are compelled to accept them as true. — tim wood

and again - you are not compelled to believe anything - if you believe them untrue - you say they are untrue because .......

you would understand that you are compelled to acknowledge that the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. — 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 ??

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. — AJJ

Great - I agree (um, with reservations about the clarity of the concepts involved)! And had you said so, our exchange would have been shorter, sweeter, simpler. But that accuracy of expression, clarity, common usage and understanding of words, that's just that pedantry. Thank you for that! By the way, ever sign a contract?

But now for argument: how do your get from the notions of arbitrary endings of life back to the idea that life starts at conception and therefore should not be ended. Are you sliding there on your slippery and indefinite concepts? Show me the reasoning!

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. — Noah Te Stroete

Anyone can make up rules.

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 ?? — Rank Amateur

Of course you do. But yours is a process of existential verification, not of argument. You do not accept the force of my argument. Why not? Because the premise, assumed to be true, is not. But you needn't have troubled to look out the window to judge the argument, you need merely to have noted that the premise was granted, assumed true. That is, there is no argument of substance. Now, if you need to check the sky for flying pastel mythical creatures, there's medicine for that.

And that's Marquis. He said he was assuming such-and-such is true and arguing from that. It is not an argument of substance. It proves nothing of substance. It establishes nothing of substance. It's an exercise, in what I do not know. (But I am satisfied by his credentials that he does know. We know what we know and in my case what I do not know.)

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.

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.

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.

I’m saying a human being’s life starts at its conception — AJJ

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.

No it doesn’t.

Irrelevant to my case. — AJJ

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.

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? — S

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.

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. — Rank Amateur

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. — Rank Amateur

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.

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.

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? And let's not forget that it is not the killing itself that is the problem, but the cause, reason, and circumstances of the killing. And "ultimate?" 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?

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. If you argue otherwise on, say, reiligious terms, then we have to concede that, on religious grounds, the "victim" is better off, and we've done him a favor.

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.

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

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. — 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

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. — 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.

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? — tim wood

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. — 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

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? — 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.

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. — 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

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. — tim wood

And there is the barb chaser. Your opinion is noted.

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. — Hanover

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.

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.

But why is it wrong to kill people like us? — Rank Amateur

Irrelevant. No one is considering killing "people like us."

A better answer would be the primary wrong done by the killing is the harm it does to the victim. — 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?

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:

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 — Rank Amateur

Or is this future restricted to the rose-colored version? The question is, how assessed, how valued.

And valued by whom? in the case of a first trimester abortion, it would seem there is no whom to value anything in any terms at all.

In the argument marquis does allow for euthanasia for people with no future, such as those in permanent vegetative states etc. — Rank Amateur

I do not recall this part of it. But I very seriously doubt that Marquis (himself) allows for any such thing. Respect for life is not merely assessment of FOV. Think about it; grant this and the Nazis could exterminate anyone, any group, they pleased. They merely would have had to reduce the FOVs of their victims to zero, and there you are. And that latter part they could do and did do. Marquis's is then arguably a covert argument for genocide!

I do not see how any of that has to do with the premise above, can you explain the relationship to the premise please — Rank Amateur

You confuse present and future value. And you adduce no reasonable way to define it, assess it, value it, or demonstrate how it matters.

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.
— 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. — Rank Amateur

How is anyone going to make a decision based on FOV alone? Won't they have any current concerns? And is it not reasonable to suppose that current concerns will outweigh this FOV?

and asking for some forbearance in not having to argue the nature of justified (killing) — Rank Amateur

Are you here arguing that killing is never justified, cannot ever be justified?

I would say the determination of that (the FOV) should be left to that individual. — 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

What the victim really loses is his future. — Rank Amateur

How can he lose it? He never had it. Nor in whatever it is that you suppose that he has is there anything of substance. I know this goes against common and informal usage, but we're not within the bounds and limits of that usage, so we must not be informal and common. And to be sure, if it's the individual who scores his own FOV, then a first trimester embryo - fetus has none at all.

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 — Rank Amateur

This alone ought to make you question the value of Marquis's arguments.

Many keystrokes have been spent on the notion of a FOV for people. The slippery hidden step is to apply it to embryo-fetuses. Why don't you try to demonstrate how that works.

But quit with Marquis's arguments. You have not addressed a single substantive issue raised against them. You merely love them and don't like to see your favorite criticized. When you get a little older, you will evaluate arguments critically and own the one's worth owning. Then you will neither need a Marquis, nor suffer from his failures, but instead stand on your own. And for what it's worth, I do not think Marquis failed, I think rather few people have bothered to think about what he wrote and given him credit for what he never tried to do. I suspect the philosopher in him would disavow most arguments based on his paper

Gish gallop

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? — tim wood

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.

Not a bad summation.

I'm not saying abortion should be banned but it needs to be monitored and regulated for the benefit of women themselves. — TheMadFool

Hm. Yes, men need to make sure women use abortion only when appropriate. :down:

Hm. Yes, men need to make sure women use abortion only when appropriate. :down: — Banno

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.

Hm. Yes, men need to make sure women use abortion only when appropriate. :down: — Banno

Talk about putting words in someone else's mouth!

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. — TheMadFool

Yes, the "absolute freedom" position is an extremist position. It should be rightly rejected.

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. — 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.

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. — TheMadFool

Talk about putting words in someone else's mouth! — S

:razz:

:up:

:grin:

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: