1) This is a very good point. I will admit that I am an amateur when it comes to philosophy but I am going to give it my best shot. I will be curious to read what you think. The ontological problem you describe I think is avoidable. I think we need to distinguish between what we can know at the moment due to limited knowledge, and what the future of the embryo in question is. Simply because we do not know if twinning will take place does not mean that the ontological identity of the embryo is non-existent. The ontological identity of the embryo does not stand or fall based on our limited knowledge. Since science is based on causality, there are reasons twinning occurs. We simply do not know all the reasons as of yet. In the future, if we can predict with accuracy when twinning will occur, this ontological problem will not longer exist. And if science can accurately predict twinning in the future, does that mean that all of the embryos before that point had no ontological identity? 2) This argument appears to more subjective in nature. Regarding how much value we place on a being that may not yet be a person per se I suppose is a futile debate. I can only say that one thing we may be able to agree on, and that is that the being's future is valuable. Do you agree? So I suppose it brings us back to the main premises and conclusion of Marquis' argument. He argues that one reason killing an adult is wrong is because it denies them of their future. This is independent of their value as a person per se. The morally central category is the category of having a future of value like ours. There may be other reasons that it is wrong to kill but certainly one of them is the great loss of a future, is it not? Can't we make the argument successfully that at least one reason it is wrong to kill an adult is because of the future denied to them, independent of their value as a person? Is not the future valuable enough to carry the argument? If that is true, it follows that to deny any being of such a future, a future like ours, must be prima facie immoral as well or we fall into inconsistency. 3) I disagree that the only difference is spatiality; there is more involved. There is a tremendous difference scientifically between a fertilized egg that is already dividing rapidly and a skin cell that contains all of my DNA information. Yes my skin cells contains all the DNA necessary to as does a fertilized egg, but the process of development has already begun in a fertilized egg and has not yet begun in my skin cell. I don't think the differences can be merely reduced to environment and resources as if these are equivalent in both cases.
Women, mostly are. That is why the vast majority of abortions occur in the first eight weeks of pregnancy. That is why medical abortion is becoming increasingly the primary option for abortion . Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2013 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2013 took place early in gestation: 91.6% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.1%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2013, 22.2% of all abortions were early medical abortions. The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 5% from 2012 to 2013. Source: MMWR.2016;65(12);1–44. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/ - - - Updated - - - Précis mate - learn to precis No-one reads past the first sentence when faced with pages of unsupported opinion
The moral category of the argument is not the fetus but the future of the fetus. That's the whole point. You need to show why viability is a moral category and not something arbitrary. Why does viability matter?
Supported by what? It's a deductive argument, not an empirical one. You know the difference, right? Besides, it's addressed to Adorno and I'm confident he'll read it. Despite the fact we disagree on Marquis' arguments, were have a lot more in common than with most of you here.
No I haven't. And why is it relevant? It sounds similar to the argument that unless I am a woman, unless I have to bear children, unless I have first hand experience on the issue of abortion, I can't possibly have a meaningful opinion on the matter. Is that what you are getting at? Have I delved into the complexity of the issue? If anything, I am being criticized on this forum for being to convoluted, but you ask if I have delved into the complexity of the topic. Which is it? I've never thought the self-defense argument was convincing. In order for self defense to be justified, it would need to be in response to an initiation of force (to use libertarian lingo). The fetus or embryo did not initiate anything so a traditional self-defense argument wouldn't apply here. I'm not catching what you mean in the second paragraph. It needs some re-wording.
Exactly. Now we're getting somewhere. One point though: the line you quoted was a conclusion, supported by the earlier statements (premises). Hence it only has justification in light of the other claims and since you agree with those other claims (by your invoking them), and didn't address any problem of logical relation between them, then you would be logically committed to supporting the quoted statement/conclusion. Just to clarify, in case that was missed.
Facts are what are used to justify judgments. You are using facts to make judgments about what is right/just/fair, hence you are by definition engaged in a moral argument. You are making a philosophical claim about why philosophical claims are worthless, which is, I must say, highly entertaining.
And if the future is doubtful then how can it be a future? A person is a person but a foetus may or may not become a person The official numbers of miscarriage are 10 - 20% but most sites admit it is probably higher as the vast majority of miscarriages are undetected pregnancies which are "late" menstruation So 15 out of 20 at least, will not become human no matter what Of those a significant number will have an abnormality incompatible with life or any degree of quality of life If the baby is born without a brain (anencephalic) then how will it become "a person"? Many late term pregnancies are more in the nature of palliative care than "murder" and most early pregnancies (90% are before the first 13 weeks with that time frame decreasing) are before brain activity
It is MY argument because I have been there and grieved with the woman and her family. I live in s state where abortion is, technically illegal. Oddly because the procedure for abortion is funded federally we know how many procedures are done here - our rates rival your abortion rates and we have very active abortion clinics Why? Becuase of the self defence issue. This is not one "person" - the foetus but a woman and a potential person. Surely the woman has the right to say "no" because she is the living established being whereas the foetus may or may not survive to become a "person" I have a strong belief that anyone who has no medical knowledge of the complexities surrounding abortion has any right to any say in what happens Self defence is a very strong argument and it is not just about medical threats - pregnancy can be a very personal threat to the woman on many many levels
Umm, in real life, an individual woman decides whether she believes it is right or wrong or necessary in her individual circumstances. Philosophers, legislators, do-gooders can all be damned, as a woman will do what she thinks best. That being the case, it behooves us and all of society to make sure her decision is as safe as it can be. Society does not really have the authority to decide the "value" of the fetus's future since society is unable to interfere effectively in a woman's choice.
Yes, the future is always doubtful. However, that is also true of an adult yet most of us would say that killing an adult robs them of their future. That is why the argument says that the fetus has a "future like ours" (an uncertain future yes, but a future still of value). Well, remember, the point of this argument is that it doesn't hinge on personhood. In other words, personhood isn't the moral category used to answer whether abortion is right or wrong, as is traditionally done. A "future of value" is the moral category, or the "lens" so to speak, through which we seek to understand the ethics of abortion. The argument is that denying the fetus of their future is is no different than denying an adult of their future; both are equally wrong. So a baby born without a brain would have no future so this argument wouldn't apply in this case. So yes, the future is always uncertain so my answers above would apply here.
Self defense, by definition, involves someone or some living being initiating violence that puts another in danger. In other words, someone or something has to make the first move to which you respond and defend yourself. However, the fetus does not initiate a thing. It does not make a first move. It doesn't choose to be in the womb. It bears no responsibility for being in the womb. It has no part in its conception. So the self defense argument doesn't hold up because it doesn't follow the definition of "defense". What medical complexities surrounding abortion are you referring to? See above. If you want to argue about the dangers of being pregnant due to the unborn fetus, then you will need a different argument than to use the self defense argument because it doesn't fit with the most basic definition of what self-defense entails.
The point of the post you quote is because she refuses to engage in the argument I posted. Her line of "reasoning" is philosophy is meaningless "gooby gook" or something to that effect and has no bearing on real life situations. What I said is that real life situations involve making arguments for or against abortion, including arguments made to the supreme court. In other words, philosophical arguments have practicality in every day life.
They get decided by laws. The justices can hear all the opinions they want but they must resort to using facts and law to make their decisions...and whether you like it or not abortion is a part of real life....and all the pseudo-intellectual claptrap in the world won't change that..... I pointed out to you that human life has only the "value" others place on it and you couldn't even handle that fact..... I'll discuss the merits of Don's arguments, it has none.
You haven't/can't prove anything wrong with my statement: ""Oh, you don't like my opinion....? Or just can't respond when facts are presented? which is it? So what if your little philosophical gods might speak what you consider truth....that has nothing to do with women's rights to their own bodies and the real world (which I suspect you may have not encountered yet). You can't seem to even get the fact people's lives only have the value others place on them. Or that not everyone has the same set of "morals" that other do. These aren't opinions, they are facts...""" Now go ahead and do all philosophical arguing and see how that affects abortion....Hint: It won't.
And many adults are denied their future by people who don't value their lives......women have that right when it comes the future of their fetus....nothing wrong with that...
Yes, pregnancy causes the woman harm and qualifies as bad enough for the woman to use self defense to kill the fetus IF the fetus is ever deemed a person.. How else could she stop the harm. YOU have that right, did you want to take that away from women? You must not know much about pregnancy if you think it doesn't harm women.
We can't judge value for other people. Value is entirely subjective. If we're trying to make realistic assumptions, we have to assume that other people value their own lives, so we can't say no future value is being taken.
If you think legal arguments before the supreme court do not use the same analytic thinking and logical argumentation as philosophers use, then you are simply naive. That is why philosophy is considered an excellent pre-law degree. I didn't respond because it is completely absurd. So a child, born to a family who abuses it and keeps her locked in a closet so nobody knows about her, suffers from such low self esteem and depression due to her upbringing that she despises her life and places no value on it, is murdered by her parents who also put no value on her life, must therefore have no value because "human life has only the 'value' others place on it". How ridiculous a statement. You must have some special privilege in life where you are exempt from backing up what you say.
Wow. What do you mean by, "many adults are denied their future by people who don't value their lives" as a justification for abortion?? It sounds like you are justifying the killing of adults simply because their lives are not valued by others (a logical conclusion to your statement that lives only have value that others place on them). FoxHastings is becoming more and more incoherent. Please clarify.
But the foetus may never have a future - it is only potentially alive so your argument, overly simplistic as it is is meaningless
The court uses "analytic thinking and logical argumentation" that use facts. One fact: Life only has the value others place on it, hence executions, wars, murders, theft, rape, etc. Has the court outlawed execution, prison sentences, war?, Correct, that child's life only had the value her parents put on it which wasn't much. Are you suggesting you have the authority on how much value life has? Or maybe Don gets that job? If you both place value on all lives why didn't you stop the parents from abusing that child? Because no matter who or what you value others may not agree.. And anyone who wants to force women to gestate and give birth by taking away their right to abortion is placing NO value on women's lives which doesn't seem to bother you at all. . You haven't proven me wrong and you can't seem to back up what you say. Why, when you talk about "valuing life" , do you persistently ignore the value of women's lives and instead value a fetus more? How illogical to value what hasn't even existed yet over an actual person who potential that can actually be seen ....(However, NO potential can be predicted with 100% accuracy as you seem to think can be done with fetuses.) Are we, as usual, going down that route of " I want to get all ethical/moral/philosophical about abortion but in the end it will come down to I want women controlled and punished just like any other Anti-Choicer" ?
