explain please. Complete thoughts make this go faster

P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it. — Rank Amateur

Ah, this is P7. I missed it. I think I understand this and agree.

If left alone a foetus will die. In order to live it needs the support of a woman.

She has to come in somewhere. This seems the obvious place.

Really? You surprise me.

Thought I just addressed that here,

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. — Rank Amateur

OK, then - after my comments, and taking this into account, what would P7 look like now?

Really? You surprise me. — Banno

I read it as saying that two different things have no connection with each other. My inner state is not relevant to the liberty you're going to take with my body. For the purposes of this discussion, I agree.

What am I missing?

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.

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.

I can't agree that the woman's body is not an essential part of P7.

P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it as in P1. — Rank Amateur

Alright. Marking this as a point of disagreement, let's move on.

So for now, the point will be moot. This is a place were you and I differ. — Banno

I'm not clear as to grounds for any difference.

P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it. — Rank Amateur

RA merely acknowledges the disconnect between any awareness I might have or not have - call it brain activity, and another agent's act taken at distance without any regard for my brain activity. It's true that a circumstance of connection can be easily imagined, but that's not what we're about, yes?

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.

and the last part


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.

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.

P1:

"depriving a person of their future is wrong". — Banno

P2:

From a very early point in a pregnancy there is a unique human organism. — 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:

All adult humans undergo the same process of development — Rank Amateur

OK.

P4:

A human being can be traced back to an embryo. — Banno

P5:

past precedes future. — Banno

P6:

Human beings have a past and sometimes a future. — Banno

P7:

One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it as in P1. — Rank Amateur

Comments?

@Rank Amateur, @tim wood,

...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 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. — Rank Amateur

If it is wrong to deprive a person of their future, and a person can still be a person despite being unconscious, so...

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?

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. — Rank Amateur

Don't know why you insist on the "important part" clause. You can have it, But in as much as the terms of it are undefined, I disqualify it from the argument. — tim wood

So much wrong with the conclusion. Let's just look at form. "If... one definition is..., then something else is murder and immoral. Not so fast. That "if" does't go away until and unless you clarify and demonstrate the hypothetical premises. I give you credit for taking over someone else's argument, but that dog wouldn't hunt for him, and now you're stuck with it. That is likely one reason he made it clear that he merely assumed it was correct.

The problem to this point is the FOV. Now you must defend it or dismiss it. To begin: define future, as you use it. I anticipate problems with your definition, so I invite you to think it through. Hint: if "future" is meaningful, and refers to time not-yet, then how do we have access to it?

Does wrong = immoral? — Rank Amateur

Yep.

Why sometimes a future, when do they not have a future? — Rank Amateur

At their time of death. Rejecting the notion of an afterlife.

Which breaks the continuity of the argument. — Banno

Way sharper than me.

p1 is about people like you and I , there is no mention the fetus in it

This point does nothing to the logic of the argument

It is an organism, and at the appropriate time in its life cycle it can reproduce. — Rank Amateur

OK, as long as we note that a foetus cannot survive independently.

A compliment? Thanks.

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.

no problem

OK, as long as we note that a foetus cannot survive independently. — Banno

That's what the no problem was for

This point does nothing to the logic of the argument — Rank Amateur

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.