I would love to see how people's position on this topic fits with their philosophical idea of "becoming". How does the topic of abortion and the topic of becoming get integrated into a coherent worldview? — Harry Hindu

That's the trouble with Zombie threads.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/249231

And elsewhere. — Banno

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. — Banno

The fetus has a brain with synapses and can feel, hear, smell and taste by the end of the second trimester. You didn't seem to address my actual question either. When does someone start the "becoming" of being "dignified"? What is sentience, and how do we know that you have it? You often insult others that don't think the way you do and therefore don't treat others in a "dignified" manner. Why shouldn't you be aborted? You say sentience is a requirement, yet the second-trimester fetus has sentience.

I don't see a problem in the day-after pill, or having an abortion within your first trimester, but to wait until sentience develops would immoral, according to your own statements, and I would agree.

It seems to me that the question is about women's rights. Without the possibility of abortion you condemn a woman to a kind of slavery in order to produce an unwanted child, whose life is unlikely to be worth living.

Yes, it is a question of women's rights (and indirectly, men's rights), where the question is whether they have the right to take human life for convenience.

What you also introduce by asking that question, is sanity of a woman who resents bearing a child. When you consider the female body's function in reproduction, it is clear that it's regular function is a hope to bear offspring. It produces and holds an egg in hope of fertility, and when the fertilization does not arrive before the condition of the egg deteriorates, it discards (at a cost) and makes another attempt.

A woman who does not cherish the offspring is suffering an unnatural depression. I agree that a baby is more likely to suffer less by having been aborted than raised by a resentful spirit and deranged mother. But, the real question then, is where justice must decide whether a woman of such insanity should not be treated and whether society is not entitled to be protected from the spirit that abides in her (which I do! - too demanding of my patience, are parents who resent and mistreat their children, and authorities that support them. It is an abomination).

Your post was unclear to me. SO I will paraphrase it, below, and you tell me if I have the gist.

— Serving Zion

There is sometimes opportunity for a living entity's "rights to live" to be not supported by morality. — Serving Zion

So sometimes it is OK to kill things.

As in the example of the case of a blood cell, it's primary function is to serve the needs of the life of its human being. Therefore while its life is sacrificed in order to clot a wound, it is not necessarily immoral to expect its sacrifice because upholding its right to life would be transgressing the human being's right to life where the blood cell's purpose and duty in life is to serve the maintenance of human being's rights of life — Serving Zion

An example is that a blood cell ought be allowed to die for the greater good of the body

but, it can be immoral to cause the death of living blood. Eg, if the wound is inflicted for an immoral reason, then it is causing an unnecessary loss of life, — Serving Zion

It is moral to kill blood cells immorally (?)

therefore the cost should be rightfully borne to preserve the life of the cell (the cost to be borne, is the refusal to support the immoral action). — Serving Zion

So one ought not kill blood cells immorally (?)

To refuse to bear that cost is counted as wickedness by judgement where the rights of the blood are brought to consideration, — Serving Zion

Blood cells have a right to life so killing them is sometimes judged wicked (?)

thus the person doing such immorality loses right to belong to the spirit of innocence and truth (iow, they are drawn into possession by the spirit that deceives them, by their refusal to follow the truth into repentance). — Serving Zion

People who kill blood cells needlesly are bad.

Nothing, because a blastocyt's intrinsic right of life is entitled to the same considerations by a judge of morality, as a blood cell. — Serving Zion

The blood cell and the blastocyst are on the same moral level



Bringing that together,

sometimes it is OK to kill things; It is moral to kill blood cells immorally;So one ought not kill blood cells immorally; People who kill blood cells needlesly are bad. The blood cell and the blastocyst are on the same moral level

Is that what you said?

I was taking your post seriously; but I came to this:

You often insult others that don't think the way you do and therefore don't treat others in a "dignified" manner. Why shouldn't you be aborted? You say sentience is a requirement, yet the second-trimester fetus has sentience. — Harry Hindu

That's a pretty pathetic pronouncement, even by your standards. You are not worth the effort, Harry. Especially as you pretty much agree with my stated position.

...for convenience. — Serving Zion

SO a twelve-year-old rape victim ought not be permitted a neat, convenient abortion?

What you also introduce by asking that question, is sanity of a woman who resents bearing a child. When you consider the female body's function in reproduction, it is clear that it's regular function is a hope to bear offspring. It produces and holds an egg in hope of fertility, and when the fertilization does not arrive before the condition of the egg deteriorates, it discards (at a cost) and makes another attempt... — Serving Zion

Calling out this misogynist crap: Women are for having children; any woman who does not wish to bear a child to term is insane; a woman who is not happy in the role of mother is deranged...

You've lost any moral standing you had, Zion. What you say here shows your judgement on ethical issues is not worth considering.

Think on how you degrade women while extolling a mere cysts. The bankruptcy of this position should be obvious even to you.

And eggs and sperm? — Banno

Eggs and sperm don’t have a potential for anything in particular. They are like bricks that can be used for anything or nothing. There would be nothing bad about throwing away a rock you found lying about even though that rock could be used for building a house or making a statue or whatever, but it would certainly be bad to walk into a building site and throw away a rock that was being used as a brick for a house in progress.

A fetus at its earliest stage already contains all the data of the fully developed human being. The potential is real and specific.

It’s a shame to ruin anything that has the definite potential of becoming something valuable and especially when you know that it will be if only you leave it alone. You don’t destroy a work of art in progress if it looks promising, even if it hasn’t reached its finished form yet.

If you think it’s wrong to murder people because you think they are valuable in themselves, it would also be wrong to kill potential people.

Potentiality is no less valuable then actuality since what is actually existing also derives its value from its potential for continued existence.

So sometimes it is OK to kill things. — Banno

I didn't mention killing blood. To kill is to take action to cause death. In the examples, the blood clotting is in response to a necessary or accidental wound - therefore, nobody has accrued moral debt for the life of the blood.

It is moral to kill blood cells immorally — Banno

It seems that you have misread me. Please check or explain how you have arrived at this idea.

So one ought not kill blood cells immorally (?) — Banno

No question about it, in my mind.

Blood cells have a right to life so killing them is sometimes judged wicked (?) — Banno

That is truth.

People who kill blood cells needlesly are bad. — Banno

The more important point is that when a person is confronted with truth that demands them to change, yet they don't want to change, they need to rationalise their thinking. The only way to do that is to employ deceit, and since the devil is the name given to the father of lies, it is a devilish spirit that they choose to follow in their thinking. It is no longer the spirit of truth that they follow, even though they convince themselves to believe they are of the truth. That is the nature of demonic possession. That's why it is important to really love the truth, because Jesus says truth, way and life are all one in the same "I am the way, the truth and the life" - there is no life outside of the truth, and there is no way apart from the truth. To depart from the truth is to be cut off and to die, hence all the immoral fighting etc - that is what demons achieve through human refusal to repent.

The blood cell and the blastocyst are on the same moral level — Banno

There is no such thing as "levels" in morality. Life is life. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and purpose prescribes duty.

Is that what you said? — Banno

That's what you said I said. I have said what I said, and I have shown you what I think of what you thought I said. Some of what you thought I said is not accurate. It looks like you have rushed, or you have not been interested in understanding what i have said, or the ideas are so new to you that you need more time to fully grasp what the words mean.

I would love to see how people's position on this topic fits with their philosophical idea of "becoming". How does the topic of abortion and the topic of becoming get integrated into a coherent worldview? — Harry Hindu

Existence requires time
Human Beings exist
Therefore, Human Beings require time for their existence

If that little syllogism is sound/true, then it would make abortion illogical or irrational.

(And speaks to your concern about " becoming ")

Scooping out your argument, a foetus contains all the data for a fully developed human being. This gives the foetus a thing called potential, that is not had by eggs and sperm.

An analogy for you: imagine disk drive containing all the information to run this forum. It has the potential to become the forum. But of course, much more is needed - the computer specifically set up to recognise the data and to implement it, the various components that connect that computer to the internet, and the internet itself. While the drive has the potential to become the forum, it cannot do so by itself.

While the foetus might have potential to become a person, realising that potential requires the intervention of the mother and the world in which she lives.

It’s a shame to ruin anything that has the definite potential of becoming something valuable and especially when you know that it will be if only you leave it alone. — Congau

Now note the bit that is bolded.

A foetus that is left alone will die. It requires substantial effort on the part of the mother and her support folk in order to reach birth; and thereafter more effort is required for it to reach maturity.

The mother is already a person.

Isn't that something quite distinct from having the potential to be a person?

So, how would you balance the real, undeniable personhood of the mother against the mere potential of the foetus?

I find your posts ponderous in the extreme, with no identifiable argument. Furthermore you have expressed a moraly abhorrent disregard for women.

I don't see a point in reading your posts.

Calling out this misogynist crap: — Banno

You have some other person in mind. There are people who are mysogenists that you can describe as you have described me. But you can't name me mysogenist. I hate evil, and the mentality that despises children - whether through male or female. It is not women that I hate.

Women are for having children; — Banno

Women get to be mothers.

any woman who does not wish to bear a child to term is insane; — Banno

It is insane to not cherish new life.

a woman who is not happy in the role of mother is deranged... — Banno

Well, delusional at least. To be unhappy about a reality that doesn't yet exist, and that could well be different, is delusional. To kill because of that delusuon, is deranged.

You've lost any moral standing you had, Zion. — Banno

I don't accept your judgement. It is clear that you have no understanding of morality.

What you say here shows your judgement on ethical issues is not worth considering. — Banno

As I said, your judgement is authoritative in your view but not mine, and why? .. it is because you want a judge that will say it is ok to kill babies so people can have unrestrained sex. It just cannot be justified morally, and when I judge, I am constrained by morality.

Think on how you degrade women while extolling a mere cysts. The bankruptcy of this position should be obvious even to you. — Banno

So to those that are watching, and who are capable of growing, Luke 21:23 mentions the wrath of God being upon mothers of infants, and why? Just as I have described of the mechanism of judgement, for refusing to follow truth into righteousness.

I offered you the opposite, but nevertheless, it is your decision and my words could not have been more persuasive.

So back to my main point:

What pisses me off most about the choice debate is the insincerity of the antagonists.

The reason you want to ban abortion is nothing to do with fair ethical consideration. It's because the people who tell you what your invisible friend wants say abortion is naughty.

The same misogynist folk who fight against child care, public education, maternity leave, and most other things that will actually benefit people. The ones who think giving guns to children is a good idea, and are shit scared of anyone who is slightly different, sexually, ethnically, geographically, politically or spiritually.

The folk who will not mention, let alone consider, the role of the potential mother; utter bullshit.

I offered you the opposite, but nevertheless, it is your decision and my words could not have been more persuasive. — Serving Zion

Persuasive words - well, they persuade.

Your writing is ugly, nasty, self-serving bullshit.

No, Banno, you don't know me at all. You are describing some other person, probably that you have thought is me because we are both called "Christian".

That's what you see. It's not who I am.

SO a twelve-year-old rape victim ought not be permitted a neat, convenient abortion? — Banno

I wouldn't recommend it, Banno. Remember what I said earlier:

Those considerations are in fact justifications for adjusting the moral compass, and they don't have any strength when faith is involved. — Serving Zion

That's what you see — Serving Zion

No, it's what you said:

...it is a question of women's rights (and indirectly, men's rights), where the question is whether they have the right to take human life for convenience.

What you also introduce by asking that question, is sanity of a woman who resents bearing a child. When you consider the female body's function in reproduction, it is clear that it's regular function is a hope to bear offspring. It produces and holds an egg in hope of fertility, and when the fertilization does not arrive before the condition of the egg deteriorates, it discards (at a cost) and makes another attempt.

A woman who does not cherish the offspring is suffering an unnatural depression. I agree that a baby is more likely to suffer less by having been aborted than raised by a resentful spirit and deranged mother. But, the real question then, is where justice must decide whether a woman of such insanity should not be treated and whether society is not entitled to be protected from the spirit that abides in her (which I do! - too demanding of my patience, are parents who resent and mistreat their children, and authorities that support them. It is an abomination). — Serving Zion

If that's not you, then don't say it.

I'm happy to say those things. It's not ugly or nasty, but tells of a person who does not love children: it is they who are ugly and nasty. It is only self-seeking insofaras I share in their suffering (Matthew 25:40, Proverbs 31:8, Isaiah 1:17).

Well, yes, it is nasty. It tells of a person who does not respect women; who assigns them their place based on their gender alone, without regard for their personhood, their potential, their needs and desires.

There is nastiness also in your quoting from the bible - as if that decrepit text had any remaining moral authority.

Here's a bit from the Book of Judges, demonstrating how women are to be treated:

Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. 23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. 24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. 26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. 27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. 28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.

SO at least be honest and admit that your objection to abortion is not based on a proper consideration of the morality involved, but instead on your acquiescence to an irredeemable, antiquated, uncivilised text.

Opposition to abortion is immoral.

It is immoral because it puts the "needs" of a cyst ahead of those of a human.

Pretending a cyst has rights in order to defend one's invisible friends is immoral.

My blood cells are human. They do not amount to a human being. A blastocyst is human. It is not a human being. Anti-abortion rhetoric relies on equivocating between human and human being. Cysts are not persons. Being a person involves sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, an appetite, and rationality. A woman is capable of all of these. A cyst, of none.

But a blastocyst can only achieve personhood by inflicting its demands on a woman. Opposing the morning after pill is immoral because it denies the dignity of the woman involved. The cyst has no moral standing.

Nor does a foetus start as a person.

Now some folk have trouble with this; they need a firm, hard line drawn. They find the fact of the slow development of the person from the embryo disconcerting. They try to force a firm break into a situation where one does not exist.

That's their problem. A proper study of philosophy of language might lead to an improvement in their understanding of what is going on when we categorise stuff, and may hopefully dispel their need for certainty.

It is also important to recognise the usual mode of argument of the anti-abortionist. They start with the belief, gleaned from their invisible friends, that abortion is wrong, and then proceed to find arguments for their case.

They are not involved in a real open discussion of the ethical issues involved. Their minds are already decided.

Well, yes, it is nasty. It tells of a person who does not respect women; — Banno

For the third time, Banno, It is not women that I disrespect, but those who despise children, whether male or female. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to the title of woman to suggest that a woman should be characterised as someone who feels entitled to have sex at will, aborting babies as nuisance side-effects. A woman is a person in whom the noble characters of womanhood have developed - and that contains a vital essence of love for children among other things that are of good virtue for a woman. If a woman is despicable and doing what is dishonourable, then it is unreasonable to expect me to respect them. It does not mean that I do not respect honourable women. This is an approach to judgement that I can see is somewhat foreign to you.

... who assigns them roll based on their gender alone — Banno

Wrong. It is gender that assigns them that role. It is a role that only that gender can have!

, without regard for their personhood
— Banno

That's crazy. You plucked that from thin air.

, their potential,
— Banno

Oh, you try now to say that I did that? .. would you like to explain how that one whose potential is wasted by the baby inside of her, has happened to become pregnant with a baby she doesn't want?

their needs and desires.
— Banno

Again, you do not understand morality in the slightest. Why is it necessary that her needs and desires should force her to kill a human being?

There is nastiness also in your quoting from the bible — Banno

Again, again. That is what you see but it is contrary to what I have shown. You are viewing what the spirit of the devil is showing you instead of the spirit of truth according to what I am giving.

- as if that decrepit text had any remaining moral authority. — Banno

It is offered for the potential, that's all. Just as Jesus did, explaining "To whomever already has, more shall be given and he will have an abundance, but to whomever does not have, even that which he does have shall be taken away from him".

Here's a bit form the Book of Judges, demonstrating how women are to be treated: — Banno

.. here's a bit from the book of Jude, that refers to the event you quoted, and shows that God in fact destroyed the city because of the wickedness found there:

Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them—having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after a different sort of flesh—are displayed as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

St. Peter wrote about it too:

He devastated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to ashes—making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.

SO at least be honest and admit that your objection to abortion is not based on a proper consideration of the morality involved — Banno

No, it honestly is moral because of the one fact: that they think babies should be killed to make way for unrestrained sex. Their desire for sexual gratification is so important to them that they will kill for it, and, they do not have any love and affection for children. That, in and of itself, is immoral.

... , but instead on your acquiescence to an irredeemable, antiquated, uncivilised text. — Banno

You are just plain wrong. But hey, I know it's not convincing you by saying it.

Opposition to abortion is immoral. — Banno

I appreciate this approach. Too many defend abortion by saying it's a matter of women's rights. That argument is similar to that of Southern slave owners who defended slavery by insisting it was a matter a state's rights.

If slavery is immoral, no one has a right to own another person. If abortion is immoral, no woman has a right to have one.

But, is it some philosophy of language that supports your assertion? Is that better than an invisible friend?

Plus, the blastocyst deal is odd. Abortions happen way beyond that stage.

...it is disrespectful to the title of woman to suggest that a woman should be characterised as someone who feels entitled to have sex at will, aborting babies as nuisance side-effects. A woman is a person in whom the noble characters of womanhood have developed - and that contains a vital essence of love for children among other things that are of good virtue for a woman. — Serving Zion

Extraordinary, that you cannot see that what you have written here reeks of misogyny.

So I might just leave it here for others to consider when appraising your work.

is it some philosophy of language that supports your assertion? — frank

I think so. Analysis of language as use shows the poverty of explicit definition. Consider family resemblance, for instance.

Misogyny is inappropriate because it does not accurately describe my views toward honourable women. There is a character of behaviour, not a gender, that distinguishes a woman from a female slut. One is honourable, the other does not invite respect. Gender does not define that distinction.

Damning yourself with your own words:

...honourable women... — Serving Zion

...female slut. — Serving Zion

Keep digging. Explain to us again how women ought behave.

With morality and self-respect (as I would say for men too, if you would like to venture into that realm of conviction).