What's absent is...potential for what?

And I'm gong with growth in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality - at least as a starting point.

I have a number of problems with that approach.

First of all you don't seem to be making a distinction between people and things, that is subjects and objects. This would imply people don't have a special qualitative value in your system, and hence can be subjugated by, and treated as, objects.

Secondly, "potential" seems to run into an infinite regress. If I am valuable not because of what I am today, but because of my potential for tomorrow, where does that value of tomorrow come from? If it comes from the state I am in tomorrow, then that is the value of what I am tomorow (a singular state), not a potential (a range of future states), which would falsify your premise that "things" aren't valued for what they are (i.e. single states). If my potential is valuable because tomorrow, I have another potential for another tomorrow, you have an infinite regress (or egress, rather). Ultimately, everything is worthless because everything ends eventually.

Furthermore, I don't see a way to quantify "potential". For example, what's the difference in potential between someone who will live for another 10 hours, 10 days or 10 years? If there is no quantitative difference, then the results are entirely arbitrary.

Lastly, I thing the notion that we don't value things for what they are, but only for their potential, is simply wrong as a matter of fact. If we valued things only for their potential, we'd never watch movies in the cinema, go to live concerts or have "bucket lists". We also value people for who they are, their character traits, or things they do and say. We don't somehow feel something that's transitory is less valuable. Indeed it's usually the other way around: We try to hold on to the transitory.

You aren't, though. Your argument has the usual inconsistency and incompleteness - the same fault that others have pointed out many times.

Try setting out what you are thinking in a clear fashion. — Banno

You thinking about your own posts, not mine.

How about actually responding to this, where I explain when sentience occurs within the womb and how that should determine when it should be immoral to have an abortion:

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. — Harry Hindu

Answer the question in bold.

What is sentience, and how do we know that you have it? — Harry Hindu

sentient | ˈsɛntɪənt, ˈsɛnʃ(ə)nt |
adjective
able to perceive or feel things: she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms.

But you knew that.

And your pretence that I have not answered your question is not endearing. I have pointed out that sentience develops somewhere between the conception and birth; and that those who demand a firm date for its development are acting disingenuously.

Further, Harry, it seems that you and I agree that abortion is acceptable up until at least the end of the first trimester.

So are you just being contrary?

In the case of a female individual being pregnant, ,as her body is her property and only hers, she has the freedom to do whatever she wants with it (and as the fetus is being carried by her, it becomes her property). In this case, it's not categorized as murder.

as the fetus is being carried by her, — Gus Lamarch

How did that happen? .. Did it result from the choice of the fetus, or the mother?

it's not categorized as murder. — Gus Lamarch

Murder is simply categorised as taking life from another, especially where it is intentional or violent, and more especially where it is premeditated.

Perception of ownership (by a murderer or a law maker) does not negate the validity of a moral complaint by the one who was murdered.

Consider and answer this question therefore: if the fetus who is to be aborted, rather would live, does the fetus have a right to request a safer environment? Does it have the power to move to a safer environment? Given that it has no opportunity to move to an environment where it can be kept safe until the age of independence, why do you not say it is enslaved and held under the threat of murder?

What's potential, exactly? — Echarmion

Potential is from the word "potent", meaning a thing that can make a big impact when it is activated, but whose impact is presently dormant or unrealised. It also does not guarantee that the impact will be big, because it depends upon the optimal release.

As an example, petrol is a potential source of explosive power, but only if it is ignited, and only if its ignition occurs where it has vaporised with sufficient oxygen.

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. — Congau

I can see what you are saying in this, and I just want to suggest giving consideration to the idea of what a person is. As I had mentioned to Banno, personhood is of recognising a person, as the word personality describes the person's expression, where personal rights are recognised according to the intrinsic value that being a person has.

A person is one who has an individual right to have their views recognised in law, to express that they suffer and plead for justice.

Personhood is, therefore, the fundamental qualifier for standing, when bringing a moral complaint.

The ones who do not recognise the right of a fetus to have a complaint, do not recognise that the fetus is a person. They qualify this by identifying anthropological qualities that the fetus lacks, that justifies their inability to grant empathy to it, as a person. Going beyond human beings, the same applies to animals, where dogs are more emotionally expressive than chickens, therefore the idea of killing a dog for food is more controversial than the chicken because it is easier to anthropomorphise the dog's behaviour than the chicken's, thereby to empathise with it personally.

But to do that, the one who quantifies the value of the dog as being more than the chicken, is showing favouritism in judgment. To judge without partiality, one would recognise the chicken has an equal moral right to complain about being killed for food, as a dog would.

In showing that there is a difference between intrinsic value and perceived value, I want to bring you to consider how far we should go with impartiality in judgement, by showing you that insects have an awareness of self, of danger, a will to survive - and yet their personality (though being distinct and strongly expressed), is not so much observed through facial expressions and voices. Then, of course, the plant - quite a difficult creature to personify, because of its maleability - it can be split, cloned, grafted etc. So one entity can become two entities by striking root of a cutting, and two entities can become one entity by grafting. Yet, it demonstrates vitality, suffering, intelligence - all proof that the force of life expresses itself through them, but do they have self-awareness (ie: soul)?

Then, you can see that morality exercised without partiality really cannot give preference to one person's rights over another on the basis of the potential of that person, because doing so would be perverting justice for the preferences of the judge!

I think it is good though, that you have mentioned the fetus' potential to be recognised as a person - because a fetus (untampered with) naturally will appear to be a person, as time progresses. Therefore it proves that the fetus is in fact a person who is developing personality, even if the one (or a law) who does not value him as a person cannot see that he is in fact a person.

Interestungly, the food in your refrigerator is a potential human. A pile of un-decomposed trash is.

the food in your refrigerator is a potential human. A pile of un-decomposed trash is. — frank

You are saying absurdity, you have to explain.

Whars your first language?

I am a native English speaker.

Cool. I just meant that food has energy in it and has the potential, given the proper circumstances, to become a human.

But you knew that.

And your pretence that I have not answered your question is not endearing. I have pointed out that sentience develops somewhere between the conception and birth; and that those who demand a firm date for its development are acting disingenuously.

Further, Harry, it seems that you and I agree that abortion is acceptable up until at least the end of the first trimester.

So are you just being contrary? — Banno

According to you post, if being disingenuous is demanding a firm date and you say that we both agree on a firm date, then we're both being disingenuous. Do you ever check your posts for consistency before posting them?

How did that happen? .. Did it result from the choice of the fetus, or the mother? — Serving Zion

It resulted by the individual choice of the female, and only by her choice. (The most important property that we all have is ourselves.)

Perception of ownership (by a murderer or a law maker) does not negate the validity of a moral complaint by the one who was murdered. — Serving Zion

Morals only serves to inhibit the individual freedom of expressing its own will, so in this case, as the fetus is "assaulting" the will of the female individual, abortion is justified.

the fetus is "assaulting" the will of the female individual — Gus Lamarch

This appears to be contradicted by your previous comment:

It resulted by the individual choice of the female, and only by her choice. — Gus Lamarch

Do you accept that contradiction? .. that a fetus does not assault the mother by being present because the mother's actions caused it to be formed?

...that a fetus does not assault the mother by being present because the mother's actions caused it to be formed? — Serving Zion

The female individual can very well choose to become pregnant, and through the act of "doublethink", see the fetus as an "assaulting" of her own will and as a "choice" of her own will, and in the end opt to an abort. (Remember, in this case, morals are not applied)

...that we both agree on a firm date, — Harry Hindu

Oh, Harry.

I’m not so concerned about what a person is and whether a fetus is a person. Whatever name you give it, it doesn’t change the argument. It’s enough to say that it will be something and that something is considered valuable. (That again is valuable because it has the potential of remaining valuable.)

Something is valuable when it has the potential of being appreciated. That is really the basic meaning of value. Money is valuable because we appreciate it and want it. Intrinsic value is a rather dubious concept, because it is not supported by anything: It’s hanging in the air. Something must be valued by something to have value.

What would it mean that a person has intrinsic value? A person is a person according to certain criteria, and these criteria are supposed to make it valuable, but why? Because it has rights? What does that mean? Where are the rights coming from? A government can distribute rights, but it can do it in any arbitrary fashion. If it were decided that chairs and tables had rights, it would be so.

If people have value, it’s because they can be appreciated by others and by themselves. Dogs and chickens can also, but probably to a lesser degree and therefore they are less valuable.

Something is valuable when it has the potential of being appreciated. — Congau

Yes, of course. In morality, it is the life of the one who is living that is appreciated by it, and it is exclusively its complaint that its life has been mistreated, that morality is concerned with.

Is it the lack of perceptive of reality and consciousness of the premature state of lifeform that makes it more bearable to perform an abortion for the carrier? Because the only thing that separates the premature life form from a fully developed one, is the passing of time. — EpicTyrant

I'm a little late to the party, but yes the lack of consciousness and perception are what makes it completely bearable to get rid of a clump of unthinking cells that may devastate the life of the woman that is pregnant. besides even if everyone else deems abortions immoral women will still seek back alley abortions and get themselves killed, or kill a fully conscious and reality perceiving baby i would rather have abortion.

You do know that within the passage of time in which everything in the universe must pass, that planted seed will grow into a thinking humanoid with feelings, which you deny for eternity. All that just because you wanted to have sex, which in turn is an act of egocentrism, knowing that your biological structure sure is made to have children. Could you then please explain to me what's the difference between murder and abortion since both equal the same outcome: to end a life?

I personally don't think humanity is ready for this type of moral dilemma yet which is why we can't really make up our minds about it. Sex is too much of an importance for us to bear life in it's current state so we disregard some things that may seem morally unjust. Maybe in a future, where we can achieve a different enlightenment about different forms of comfort to survive, we could make a balanced suggestion based on our current moral development too have sex only when needed or maybe due to technical wonders, achieve sexual relations with 100% reduced risk of impregnating?

Could you then please explain to me what's the difference between murder and abortion since both equal the same outcome: to end a life? — EpicTyrant

abortion does not begin with a life

Masturbation is killing sperm; abortion is killing a fetus. I don't think it's murder to abort sperm or a fetus.

It can be argued to be murder, but that depends on how much value you attribute to sperm/fetus.

Well, when you masturbate, the process of creating a life hasn't begun yet,so you're not really denying anything from happening. You are just choosing not to start the process which leads to life kind of like abstaining from sex.

Abortion is killing a fetus, which is predestined to become a life. Since we're all bound to time just like we're bound to the physical rules of this universe it could be considered equal to kill a fetus as to kill a functional living being because there isn't really any difference between them and a thinking human because within time they will share the same attributes.

Could you argue against it?

If you did read my text then you'd understand that life within different stages is still life. According to your logic it would be equally right to kill a newborn child as to an abortion state fetus as they both haven't really developed into full consciousness.

Yes I can argue against it.

The same value isn't attributed to a fetus as is a baby.

Killing a fetus isn't like killing a baby.

It is life, but the type of life it is, is okay to abort.

If you did read my text then you'd understand that life within different stages is still life. According to your logic it would be equally right to kill a newborn child as to an abortion state fetus as they both haven't really developed into full consciousness. — EpicTyrant

I have not clarified that I mean first or second trimester pregnancies not third trimester, and do you deem it okay to kill a fully grown, fully conscious cow, what about a deer, or a pig, by your logic it would be wrong to kill them, even if there was a purpose. I am saying it is okay to "kill" a clump of cells with no free thinking, a clump of cells who might grow into a mentally scarred child because they were born into a family who was unable or unwilling to take care of them. with your argument a fetus might become conscious, so it is wrong to abort, so that makes it wrong to kill a conscious, sentient animal.

Well i am ok with your logic without taking time into the equation. If you take time into the equation that clump of cells is equal to a conscious human, since we're all a part of it. Life is just a process that begins and ends and all processes are dependent on time. It is not entirely certain that the child will become mentally scarred, and even if it do, there are many records of people rising above and obtaining some kind of quality of life. To exist, even in great measures of pain is better than to not exist at all, but that is entirely subjective and my personal opinion.

It's not possible to apply an animal into this debate since it's been necessary for our survival to consume, just the law of nature.

Have a great weekend!

Well i am ok with your logic without taking time into the equation. If you take time into the equation that clump of cells is equal to a conscious human, since we're all a part of it. Life is just a process that begins and ends and all processes are dependent on time. It is not entirely certain that the child will become mentally scarred, and even if it do, there are many records of people rising above and obtaining some kind of quality of life. To exist, even in great measures of pain is better than to not exist at all, but that is entirely subjective and my personal opinion.

It's not possible to apply an animal into this debate since it's been necessary for our survival to consume, just the law of nature. — EpicTyrant

well then why not just keep going back, a sperm cell or an egg cell is just fertilization and time away from being a full grown fetus, and those aren't conscious so what's the difference if they both have potential for human life. besides that, you are right but generally if a mother is getting an abortion then the home environment would not be good for the child.
And to that I say yes it 100% is, you CAN live without eating any kind of meat, a mother CAN choose to not get an abortion, even if she cannot sustain the child.
you too, have a great week after that too.

The entire abortion issue should've been buried the day contraception was invented. After all, if we can prevent conception as easily as is now possible, abortion becomes meaningless. While I can understand the need for abortion in cases where fetuses are so severely diseased as to make living a veritable hell or when rape results in a pregnancy or contraception failure, I'm uncomfortable with what the label pro-choice implies. Pro-choice as a term used by advocates of abortion has positive connotations, having to do with women's rights over their bodies and all. However, there's something sinister about such an outlook- it seems to license irresponsible behavior by neglecting to give due importance to contraception which could've easily prevented pregnancy in the first place.