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.

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

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...

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

Yes, another thread; unfortunately even naming him in some circles, in which his arguments would be beneficial, will finish conversations. He is persona non grata in disability circles.

When pro-choice people have enough power to create an amendment... — frank

Given that this is around sixty percent of your population, why is it that they do not have "the power"?

Or is yours a failed democracy.

It's a good argument, but unfortunately Singer mucked his credentials with some rubbish about disability. The capabilities approach strikes me as an improvement. There is a neat summary of the approach here: Abortion, Dignity and a Capabilities Approach

This also recognises the nuance @frank is looking for.

Do you even own a weapon of any kind? — frank

I don't need to.

Have a look down the page from Pew Research linked above. Opposition to abortion is overwhelmingly from white evangelical protestant republican conservatives.

What was that you said about Democracy?

You can't even justify believing 2+2=4. That doesn't diminish your civil rights. — frank

Seriously? So you have given up on rationality. Fine. See you on the ramparts.

They think it's immoral. The reason that matters is a little thing called democracy. — frank

They think it is immoral, but their justification for that is shite.

You know that if there were are referendum in 'Merka, abortion would be legal.

It's dishonorable and morally repugnant to suggest that they don't have a right to their feelings. — frank

I didn't deny their feelings, just their excuse. What they think their invisible friend says is no justification for forcing their view on others. If they do not agree with abortion, that's fine, they do not have to have one.

This argument is actually offensive — frank

Tough. What folk think their invisible friend says is no basis for moral choice.

so stop calling it a cyst — frank

You seem to be having trouble with the fact that the foetus develops over time.

Go over it again, if you will. "Murder" is a legal term. Folk who think abortion is murder, despite it not being so on the state legal code, perhaps might defend their view by appeal to the supposed laws of their invisible friends. They call it murder because their invisible friend says so.

And by the time a heart develops, we are no longer looking at a cyst. Yet we are still not looking at a person.

Point was it's a cyst with a beating heart. — frank

Your terminology is muddled here, but it seems you are intent only on being a bit of a dick, so I'll leave you to it.

Why do you care about the heart, though? Does that give you pause? — frank

I don't. You raised "heart", not me.

...wrongful killing... — frank

"They" think it against god's law, perhaps.

They don't like to do them before 12 weeks. — frank

That doesn't seem to be so.

If you decide to have an abortion, it is best to have it as early as possible.

It is safe, simple and low-risk when done under 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Slavery is ok if it's legal? — frank

Abortion is not murder if it is legal.

It's a cyst with a beating heart. — frank

Not to begin with.

They just think it's murder. — frank

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

All that may be so, and yet it remain useful to sometimes separate what a sentence is about from what one is doing with it.

To be sure, it is a mistake to think that there is one correct analysis of any given utterance. But of course that does not mean we can't or shouldn't engage in analysis.

All this by way of again rejecting logical monism.

I did. A cyst is not a person. Try not to read so selectively.

Does that help? — Bob Ross

No. A cyst is not a person.

Merkins.

Hmm. Or you could... cooperate....

There is no transcendent source material. — Tom Storm

You are pretty much in agreement with Moore and Foot, then.

I'll have my folk bill you for the therapy session.

begged the question — Shawn

I'm not sure you know what that means, in a philosophical context.

I'm really not following any of this.

So you have been reading quantum again. No good will come of such foolishness.

if concepts are truth-apt under universal quantification... — Shawn

I've no idea what that might mean. I'll leave you to it.

...this is again nominalism — Shawn

How?

I've no clear notion of what this has to do with quantification.

I don;t see how one could disagree with universal quantification...

I'm asking you to apply Moore's open question to your definition of "good". It's a meta ethical request. I suspect that you realise the problem, and that's why you won't oblige me.

Seems to me - without reading your book - that the bit you are missing is how ethics intrinsically involves not what you want, but how you relate to other folk.

But it's up to you whether you choose to reply or no.

concepts are used in different ways. — Shawn

No! That's not what it says. Rather, concepts are what we do. The difference is central. Concepts are not things!

Treat this as an example in which the malady is misunderstanding the notion of concept, and the treatment is to show that concepts are what we do, and not things.

If you're looking for a specific answer, then go ahead, provide one. — Shawn

I'm not. I'm wondering about your thinking on the topic, and how it relates to

...the passage of the Philosophical Investigations, I/§383, regarding "concepts as words" and Wittgensteins nominalism. — Shawn

It is clear Wittgenstein is rejecting any notion of treating words as just names, and that concepts are about use, not just grammar.

Are philosophers still in need of therapy? — Shawn

Midgley's plumbing metaphor might show the point better than Wittgenstein's therapy metaphor.

So what sort of thing is a concept?

We are not analysing a phenomenon (e.g. thought) but a concept (e.g. that of thinking), and therefore the use of a word.

What more is there to any given concept than what we do?

Well, isn't it good to have all that finished with, then?

Now we can move on to more fundamental things, such as why 'mercans say "cookie" when they mean biscuit.

I'm just not going to go on a tangent to other topics. — Vivek

But

G.E. Moore asks a similar question. What exactly do we mean when we say something is good? What does it mean when we say something is right or wrong? — Vivek

I asked you to apply this to your "survive, to live, to thrive"... looks bang on topic to me.

Well, how else will Vivek get sales?

What are the site rules about spruiking, @Jamal?

So, I think, there is some internal aspect of how learning can at all take place... — Shawn

But "And the question will then arise whether we are still willing to use the concept of 'calculating in the head' here—or whether in such circumstances it has lost its purpose, because the phenomena gravitate towards another paradigm."

It seems you think a concept is something only in one's mind, a rule to be followed. Do you think Wittgenstein would agree?

Are you alluding to qualities of concepts — Shawn

Not qualities, but uses. In addition to the grammar, there is what we do - we choose the blue bicycle and go for a ride. That's not grammar.

For some value of "helps".

If it is all about the externalities of the topic, then I'm only concerned with the internal aspect of how concepts are understood. — Shawn

So concepts have "internal" and "external" aspects? We might leave aside for now how it is possible to talk about these "internal" aspects, and suppose that the grammar, since it is shared, is "external". See PI §385.

What do you make of PI §381-2? This by way of addressing your "what other factors are associated with concepts apart from grammar?"

Thanks for that, Josh. Most helpful.