Excuses. The failure of the USA to correct the decline of its democratic institutions is a global tragedy.

Excuses. The failure of the USA to correct the decline of its democratic institutions is a global tragedy. — Banno

But we never had a nuclear war. That's a win!

He is persona non grata in disability circles. — Banno

Yep! This is not one of them.

To be sure, it is with good reason! The capabilities approach has a stronger and broader notion of personhood. It incorporates the social model of disability quite explicitly, while Singer holds to the medical model...

I've read that before. IMO it's a hatchet job.

Yes, it is. Yet this reading of Singer is there. As a result, folk with disabilities wisely reject such naked consequentialism.

As a result, folk with disabilities wisely reject such naked consequentialism. — Banno

Issue seems out of thread. We should leave it.

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but is there not that seemingly non-existent thing known as "father's rights". Unfortunate that most people consider in modern society some forms of conception (non-intended aka "accidental") as a burden or tragedy but nonetheless there are people who don't. Should a father not have some say as to whether, again, whatever you want to call what would otherwise become HIS CHILD, no different than how you are a living, breathing, human being today, lives or dies? Understandably, a male is not capable due to not having the "facilities" to develop and birth a child, but could that not be compared in a way to depositing something that belongs to you (in this case cash substituting for genetic material) into a bank (substituting for a womb) where it can gain interest and grow, yet remaining at least in part, something you have grounds of ownership toward that would affect you physically, mentally, and emotionally if it were to be obliterated with no input from you whatsoever?

Sure, fathers should have a say. There just isn't much room to include them in any legal frameworks.

Sure. The mother carries the child, and so has the greater part. The father can play their part by convincing the mother that they will provide sufficient care and love to child and mother that she decides not to have the abortion. No more.

One needn’t be religious to oppose abortion or infanticide. The sanctity of human life isn’t just a religious principle, but a humanist one. Our bodies have largely evolved for the task of protecting human life in its earliest development, and many of us hold to right-to-life principles, for instance that a human being in its earliest development deserves a chance to live. Anyone who has carried or cared for a child understands the force of this. Many of us act to see this proposition through.

It is my opinion that we ought not to be so glib and flippant about the killing of human beings. All of this is a grave matter. We know that an individual human lifecycle begins at conception, since it cannot begin anywhere else, and any scalpel through the spine or intentional deprivation of essential nutrients after this point is to kill an individual human being. That’s why the evasions about whether the fetus has feelings or if it is biologically inhuman serve only to cast doubt on the humanity of this being in its earliest stages, to dehumanize it, making the abnegation of any right-to-life principle an easier pill to swallow for those who wish to see it eviscerated with sheers. If you extend this depravity to a different point along the human life continuum, you can see the same arguments used to justify genocide and murder.

I don’t think any of this means we should prohibit abortion. Infanticide is a historical fact. Females often kill or abandon their offspring throughout the animal kingdom. Perhaps we should make humane options available. But it is surely nothing to be proud of.

right-to-life principles, for instance that a human being in its earliest development deserves a chance to live. — NOS4A2

That's begging the question though. The whole problem is that you have to assume that human beings are around as disembodied souls waiting to exist for that argument to make sense.

And that is definitely a religious position.

We know that an individual human lifecycle begins at conception, since it cannot begin anywhere else, and any scalpel through the spine or intentional deprivation of essential nutrients after this point is to kill an individual human being. — NOS4A2

This is a kind of intellectual sleight of hand. You're starting with a biological description (using descriptive concepts such as "lifecycle") and you want us to conclude from your phrasing ("to kill an individual human being") a moral judgement. But you haven't justified the judgement on it's own terms.

That’s why the evasions about whether the fetus has feelings or if it is biologically inhuman serve only to cast doubt on the humanity of this being in its earliest stages, to dehumanize it, making the abnegation of any right-to-life principle an easier pill to swallow for those who wish to see it eviscerated with sheers. If you extend this depravity to a different point along the human life continuum, you can see the same arguments used to justify genocide and murder. — NOS4A2

So if it's not about feelings or anything else biological, what is it about? Why do we care? What's the humanist principle for?

I don’t think any of this means we should prohibit abortion. Infanticide is a historical fact. Females often kill or abandon their offspring throughout the animal kingdom. Perhaps we should make humane options available. But it is surely nothing to be proud of. — NOS4A2

That's poisoning the well. You're falsely insinuating that your opposition is "proud of" abortion.

That's begging the question though. The whole problem is that you have to assume that human beings are around as disembodied souls waiting to exist for that argument to make sense.

And that is definitely a religious position.

Why would anyone need to assume that?

This is a kind of intellectual sleight of hand. You're starting with a biological description (using descriptive concepts such as "lifecycle") and you want us to conclude from your phrasing ("to kill an individual human being") a moral judgement. But you haven't justified the judgement on its own terms.

I start at the principle “a human being in its earliest development deserves a chance to live”. Given the helplessness of a human being in his early development, such a principle seems to me imperative. Any subsequent moral judgements proceed from this one.

So if it's not about feelings or anything else biological, what is it about? Why do we care? What's the humanist principle for?

Exactly. Why do you care or not? You either believe human beings in their earliest development deserves a chance to live, to be protected, or you do not.

That's poisoning the well. You're falsely insinuating that your opposition is "proud of" abortion.

Abortion rights is often posited as a mark of an enlightened society, when in fact infanticide, child sacrifice, and acts of these sorts is a stone age and barbaric practice.

Abortion rights is often posited as a mark of an enlightened society, when in fact infanticide, child sacrifice, and acts of these sorts is a stone age and barbaric practice. — NOS4A2

Abortion is nothing like infanticide or child sacrifice.

All of them involve the intentional killing of very young and helpless human beings. That’s all I mean.

Abortion is nothing like infanticide or child sacrifice. — Michael

But one of the challenges the pro-choice advocate faces is explaining the dividing line between killable and not-killable. When and how does that transition take place?

Why would anyone need to assume that? — NOS4A2

What else would a "human being in it's earlierst development" refer to?

It cannot refer to the actual person that eventually forms after birth, as that person doesn't exist. So it could only refer to their "soul", which somehow already represents the person.

I start at the principle “a human being in its earliest development deserves a chance to live”. Given the helplessness of a human being in his early development, such a principle seems to me imperative. Any subsequent moral judgements proceed from this one. — NOS4A2

In which case your entire argument is begging the question. Why would "a human being in it's earlierst development" deserve the chance to live? It's not at all trivial that future people somehow have the right to exist. Where does their moral standing come from?

Exactly. Why do you care or not? You either believe human beings in their earliest development deserves a chance to live, to be protected, or you do not. — NOS4A2

Really? That is how your morality works? Just a coinflip where you either happen to believe something or don't?

Again your non-religious morality sounds awfully like a religion. Why do we respect people's rights to life and liberty? Because we recognise ourselves in them. We recognise that every individual is valuable in themselves and we can never replace one with another, so the only reasonable rule is to protect all as much as possible.

The problem is, this reasoning doesn't apply to "theoretical people". Individuals are valuable for what they are, not what they might be.

Abortion rights is often posited as a mark of an enlightened society, when in fact infanticide, child sacrifice, and acts of these sorts is a stone age and barbaric practice. — NOS4A2

This is just more poisoning of the well.

All of them involve the intentional killing of very young and helpless human beings. That’s all I mean. — NOS4A2

But not all of them involve killing an embryo or foetus. That is a significant moral difference.

But one of the challenges the pro-choice advocate faces is explaining the dividing line between killable and not-killable. When and how does that transition take place? — frank

It's gradual.

Let's take the pro-life argument I offered at the start:

P1. It is wrong to kill a baby the day after birth.

The argument would then be:

P2. If it is wrong to kill a baby the day after birth then it is wrong to kill a baby the day before birth.
C1. Therefore, it is wrong to kill a baby the day before birth.
P3. If it is wrong to kill a baby the day before birth then it is wrong to kill a baby two days before birth.
C2. Therefore, it is wrong to kill a baby two days before birth.
...
etc.

This line of reasoning will entail the conclusion that it is wrong to kill a baby from the moment of conception. — Michael

The counter argument is:

P1. It is wrong to kill a baby the day after birth.
P2. It is slightly less wrong to kill a baby the day before birth than the day after birth.
P3. It is slightly less wrong to kill a baby two days before birth than the day before birth.
P4. It is slightly less wrong to kill a baby three days before birth than two days before birth.
...

At some point any degree of wrongness, if there is indeed any wrongness left, is insignificant compared to the wrongness of not allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy.

It's much like the Sorites paradox. We might not be able to determine where the line is drawn, and there might not even be a precise point where some line is drawn, but we can say at the one extreme a single grain of sand is not a heap and a newly conceived embryo does not have an overriding right to life, and at the other extreme 1,000,000 grains of sand is a heap and a three year old child does have an overriding right to life.

But one of the challenges the pro-choice advocate faces is explaining the dividing line between killable and not-killable. When and how does that transition take place? — frank

I mean everyone recognises a dividing line between subjects, which have moral standing and objects, which do not.

There is not strictly any empirical basis for even differentiating between living organisms and "dead" matter. Biology is just a specific kind of chemistry.

The simple fact is that we judge the moral value of beings - their value in and of themselves - based on their similarity to ourselves. What else could we do? We only have access to our own consciousness, we are only aware of ourselves as an actor. So that's the starting point we have. We could ruminate on the possible consicousness of blades of grass or even rocks but we'd not get anywhere.

Why is a fetus not a person? Well it cannot walk, it cannot talk, it does not recognise itself in a mirror, it does not display many behaviours in which we recognise ourselves. We know it could become a person in the future, which is the reason we are concerned. But saying it has a right to live because it has human DNA isn't really any less arbirtray than saying a child has a right to live after birth, but not before.

Alisha was slightly pregnant, slightly wrong to abort it, slightly grieved, and overjoyed to get in with her life.

But saying it has a right to live because it has human DNA isn't really any less arbirtray than saying a child has a right to live after birth, but not before. — Echarmion

So you're admitting that the dividing line is arbitrary?

"His defence fails if consequentialism is false, so to prove that abortion is permissible he must prove that its moral permissibility is determined by the consequences."
— Michael

I like this statement. I like it in part because it is my own belief that consequentialism is a lie or false and that deontological morality is correct.

The trouble is that choices occur in interwoven patterns that all matter. Each one has a deontological component.

To whit: One is not allowed morally to suggest that one is unaware (unless one is too young or incompetent to be aware), that a living being is not a possible consequence of sexual activity. Consequentialism is a lie as to moral blame, but not moral awareness. That means known possible consequences inform deontological choice. Intent in that sense does not matter. That is to say, one must be willing to 'deal with' a possible pregnancy in a moral way if one engages in sexual activity.

'Deal with', in my parlance here, is a variable term that includes all possible actions or choices which are then themselves subject to objective moral judgment. One is not morally allowed to declare intent and thereby avoid the consequences. Probability becomes highly relevant as well in such a discussion. For example, I would entertain as meaningful or more meaningful the joint statement of a couple, perhaps signed online (as I have recommended in the past), that they DO NOT intend to have a child. Society would then decide not willy nilly (ha ha) but based on evidence, what the probability of the contraceptive being used was. If that fell within some 'reasonable' limit the stated intent would overrule the pregnancy consequence. Note that this is ONLY rank mitigation of the moral choice. It IS NOT an attempt to claim that life is not all morally precious. It is only an attempt to work with the pro-life stance.

Of course we are ALWAYS talking here, about liars and deceit. People lie to themselves and others. So there would then be evidence of properly taking the contraceptive or not. If the evidence is not there, the intent as stated would be IRRELEVANT. The matter carries sufficient moral weight (to me) to require those who engage in it to take on this burden of evidence and documentation. The 'inconvenience excuse' is precisely the sort of moral low bar that needs to be held accountable. I have an ex girlfriend that is mostly neutral about choice, or let's say willing to tolerate it in others. She is pro-life in general herself. But she draws the line at driving an acquaintance to her 3rd abortion within 5 years. I agree with her that there is clearly an immoral pattern of irresponsible behavior there. So, liars and the uncaring need to be called to task for such things.

But this impinges upon the question of punishment (and reward) another moral layer. It is my own current belief that the punishments and rewards of actions/choices are immediate and resonant upon the entire universe, let alone the chooser. But I will try not to derail the thread. Suffice to say summing up the punishment paragraph that restraint IS NOT actually punishment. It is assistance. But then the debate rages on about what is and is not moral. Is morality objective, for instance, becomes a critical issue. On we go, leaving this here for now.

What if there is no proof of consequentialism either way?

The logical concept of proof is already foolish because nothing can be proven. If you mean proven colloquially as in 'beyond reasonable doubt' or, 'by appeal to some moral authority', then fine. But proof in the final sense, is impossible. So we have only a well of beliefs from which to operate.

Many people, often Pragmatists, will overly judge based on consequences, especially as mentioned LIKELY consequences. Among healthy humans, sexual activity is often LIKELY to result in pregnancy, especially over time. There is no reasonable way to claim one is unaware of that possibility as LIKELY, or, at least, that is the meaningful NOMINAL case.

I find it disingenuous and immoral in the extreme to discuss 'ownership of the body'. You own nothing in this reality. You pretend to such things as ownership, a moral delusion only. We all are one. You belong and cannot be made to un-belong. So does any consequential child. Any mention of 'personhood' is likewise ridiculous sophistry in the colloquial sense, although I admit I hate that word as it should be positive meaning the art of wisdom. When a woman is pregnant, she is dealing with two aggregate humans or more and not only herself. There can be no deontological avoidance of this truth. The sexual act will nominally result in pregnancy over time. Everything in the universe belongs to everyone equally. Our conventions in law and culture to the contrary are only immoral beliefs and choices.

The intent of that idea, the 'unity principle' is wise and good. The intent of selfish 'ownership' is not wise, not GOOD. The consequences of unwise belief are ramified immoral immediate resonations throughout the universe. That is contributory to 'universe failure'. The GOOD, to me, perfection, is the only valid goal in the universe, it's raison d'etre.
 
Can I assume that anyone who says that abortion is impermissible whatever the consequences is assuming that deontology is true and must prove that?

As mentioned, there is no proof. There is only belief. But one must state their belief and argue for it. Teh argument is all. Use as much reason and evidence as you can to argue, yes. But finally, it is only and always a matter of belief. Justification of beliefs is wise.

What if there is no proof of deontology either way?

Again, no such thing as 'proof', but let's assume you mean 'within reason'. Indeed, not only would it be near impossible to prove deontology 'within reason', but we would need mind reading or some such to implement it meaningfully. Still, deceit is not easy. All immoral acts break something in the actor and the universe. This brokenness can be felt and empathized (against). Some others will proselytize overmuch such that their 'good' intent is a blade used to cut, rather than to catalyze wisdom. Proof IS NOT the point.

The point is better and better use of all aspects of wisdom at the same time, all virtues. NO VIRTUE can be left out for the best effect. But if this claimed then one must have some suspicion that morality is objective, or there is NOTHING to stand on. Only the objective nature of morality allows for any judgment at all. This is why anti-judgement (desire) WANTS so badly to denigrate all judgment and many desire type or oriented people will hurl the epithet 'Judgy!' at people who are actually wiser than they are. Desire is merely a synonym for freedom, so freedom IS NOT always wise. The restraint of fear is needed to balance freedom into wisdom.

There's an interesting question of the burden of proof here anyway. Do we have to prove that abortion is impermissible, in which case, lacking a proof, we can assume that abortion is permissible? Or do we have to prove that abortion is permissible, in which case, lacking a proof, we can assume that it is impermissible?

The proof question is not as moot as it seems. Proof is elusive, if not impossible. Rather, make an argument and offer your supporting evidence. My take on the issue overall is that free will is the true and balanced state, or, 'moral condition', of the universe. So, yeah, ... now I am on to free will. The only reason people argue against free will is that as choice approaches infinity, truth, such a choice becomes infinitesimally probable only (and thus infinitely hard to make). So, as we get more and more moral, the next step becomes meta harder to reach. The tendency is to 'give up' or turn to immoral concepts like Nihilism and Moral Subjectivism to defend the ego, the chooser.

As such, I prefer to inform others of what I consider morality to be and to SUFFER their choice with them. This means although I am pro-life myself, I am pro-free-will (perhaps pro-choice) generally. I WILL suffer them to choose. But that sufferance has limits. There are ways to become so egregious in immoral choice that one must be restrained for their own objective good and that of society. Immorality is a disease and it spreads far more easily than does the wisdom to take a truly expansive moral stance, to make a truly moral choice. A moral choice in the final sense is always the hardest choice one can make. Ease is by definition, immoral.

If we lack a proof both of the permissibility of abortion and of its impermissibility, can we just suspend judgement?

I do not think or believe that there is insufficient evidence to make an argument. Pro-life is finally correct. But there Is also pro-free-will. If one is restrained from being able to make actions, that IS NOT the same as not making choices. So, restraint cannot ever affect free will really. That is to say, assuming abortion was indeed an immoral choice universally then merely the choice, even if restrained and prevented, to abort, would be just as immoral.

I suppose we have to. In that case, there will be nothing to prevent people following their own consciences.

In general this is true. It's the malaise or nonchalance of immoral choice that begins to creep in and spread like a sickening thing. It rots the effort towards wisdom and obliges us all, as belonging parts of the universe to step in and restrain, re-inform, and re-release to freedom to act (not choose as that cannot be restrained).

There is, at least at present, no conclusive argument available either way. In which case, there is no justification for a law either way and no ground to prevent people following their own consciences.

I tend to agree that law is not the proper realm for this issue. But, the repeat offender of a principle would need to have the three r effect imposed upon them. Restrain, re-inform, and re-release in as short a timeframe as is possible. Society must attempt to catalyze the good in its members, and this in a way that is not too prolonged or proselytizing. Like all wisdom, it's a tricky balance.

Using birth is arbitrary in the sense that it doesn't really match up to the moral situation precisely. There are arguments to be made for using this particular point (I made some in this thread), but you could make other arguments for e.g. some percentage likelihood of survival in case of a premature birth.

The point I wanted to make was that we should be honest about how we know something is a someone, a person. It's by comparison with ourselves. By trying to figure out whether they think in a way we recognise as intelligence.

There's going to be a point after conception when we can recognise a child as an intelligent being. Beyond that, we don't really have any reason to give a collection of biochemical processes special standing because they involve human DNA, do we?

What else would a "human being in it's earlierst development" refer to?

It cannot refer to the actual person that eventually forms after birth, as that person doesn't exist. So it could only refer to their "soul", which somehow already represents the person.

It refers to the earliest stages of every human being that ever existed. There is no biological evidence that a soul or “actual person” forms at any point during the lifecycle. That’s your assumption.

Really? That is how your morality works? Just a coinflip where you either happen to believe something or don't?

Again your non-religious morality sounds awfully like a religion. Why do we respect people's rights to life and liberty? Because we recognise ourselves in them. We recognise that every individual is valuable in themselves and we can never replace one with another, so the only reasonable rule is to protect all as much as possible.

The problem is, this reasoning doesn't apply to "theoretical people". Individuals are valuable for what they are, not what they might be.

Not a coin flip. I pointed out that most parents feel the force of this principle, and the evidence is that an unfathomable amount of parents do indeed carry and care for human beings in the earliest stages of development, up until and including incubating them in their own bodies.

You do recognize that you were once a fetus, I assume. At no point in your life were you theoretical after conception. That’s utter nonsense, I’m afraid.

That is to say, one must be willing to 'deal with' a possible pregnancy in a moral way if one engages in sexual activity. — Chet Hawkins

I agree with her that there is clearly an immoral pattern of irresponsible behavior there. So, liars and the uncaring need to be called to task for such things. — Chet Hawkins

I'm missing a step in your argument here. I can agree with the first statement, but to get to the second you'd have to establish a duty, in principle, to carry a pregnancy to term.

It refers to the earliest stages of every human being that ever existed. There is no biological evidence that a soul or “actual person” forms at any point during the lifecycle. That’s your assumption. — NOS4A2

So, if no actual person forms, then how does morality come into it at all?

Not a coin flip. I pointed out that most parents feel the force of this principle, and the evidence is that an unfathomable amount of parents do indeed carry and care for human beings in the earliest stages of development, up until and including incubating them in their own bodies. — NOS4A2

So, argumentum ad populum?

You do recognize that you were once a fetus, I assume. At no point in your life were you theoretical after conception. That’s utter nonsense, I’m afraid. — NOS4A2

I don't know whether I was ever a fetus. I have no memories of existing prior to birth (as I understand most people do not), and I don't know any other way to establish whether I existed at some point.

"I" am neither my cells nor my DNA. Nor am I a causal chain.

So, if no actual person forms, then how does morality come into it at all?

I don’t know what an “actual person” is. What I do know is that a human being forms, and that morality ought to concern human beings.

So, argumentum ad populum?

Biology and anthropology. What is your basis?

I don't know whether I was ever a fetus. I have no memories of existing prior to birth (as I understand most people do not), and I don't know any other way to establish whether I existed at some point.

"I" am neither my cells nor my DNA.

Everyone knows, actually. It is an irrefutable fact that you were a fetus.

But there you have it. You are not your cells nor your DNA. Then what are you? A soul?

I don’t know what an “actual person” is. What I do know is that a human being forms, and that morality ought to concern human beings. — NOS4A2

An actual person is an actual person. Someone you can meet and talk to, and who responds.

Morality ought to concern persons, subjects. I don't see how their species would be relevant.

Biology and anthropology. What is your basis? — NOS4A2

Both biology and anthropology are descriptive. How do you get from that to a moral judgement?

And I already gave you my basis:

Why do we respect people's rights to life and liberty? Because we recognise ourselves in them. We recognise that every individual is valuable in themselves and we can never replace one with another, so the only reasonable rule is to protect all as much as possible. — Echarmion

Everyone knows, actually. It is an irrefutable fact that you were a fetus. — NOS4A2

"Everyone knows" is not an argument. I gave you the reasoning, I trust you're capable of understanding it.

But there you have it. You are not your cells nor your DNA. Then what are you? A soul? — NOS4A2

That's one way of putting it. Though I'm an embodied soul, whose existence is measurable. "Soul" often implies something esoteric, but I don't mean to imply that anything mystic is going on. Merely that "I" am formed from a connection of a body, some kind of cognitive process and memories.

A clump of cells would not be me even if it shared my DNA. If you made an exact copy of me, that copy would cease to be me the moment it added it's own experiences.

I don't think any of this is very complicated in principle.

Murder is unlawful killing. It's not murder if abortion is legal. — Banno

If infanticide were legal, it wouldn't be murder. Substitute anything for the word "infanticide" and the logic holds. "Murder" entails illegality.

The pro-life folks are essentialists. That element worth protecting in you or me they believe exists in fertilized eggs. I don't find that position despicable. I just find it unpersuasive. The conceptus and I surely look distinct in all important ways, but I'm not terribly offended by the insistence that we ought not have fuzzy lines distinguishing which humans are afforded protection under the law and which not.

But turning away from essentialism, if we look instead toward general resemblance, we don't get a fully satisfactory answer either. Why would a 5 week fetus be a person and not the 3 week fetus?

And what does women's choice or viability have to do with any of this? I'd have no problem with heroic efforts to save an organism that was unquestionably a person even if it weren't at the moment viable and even if the person carrying it objected. Viability and choice arguments are pragmatic political insertions, but they ignore the question of personhoid.

And the point is that this isn't philosophy when we all are doing is trying to arrive at workable or even compassionate public policy. It's just political debate, and therefore the vitriol.

Let's talk about the law of Hanoveria that says "Thou shalt not break cups." We can then argue whether a hunk of clay on a turning wheel can be destroyed prior to its full formation. That subtracts the vitriol.