1. It is ordinarily wrong to kill an adult because it deprives that adult of a future of value. 2. Abortion also deprives the fetus of a future that is equally as valuable as an adult's future. 3. Therefore, it is ordinarily equally as wrong to kill a fetus as it is to kill an adult. Based on Don Marquis' arguments on abortion.
Well, Donny's wrong. He obviously hasn't read much on abortion since he doesn't seem to know much...Maybe "Don" should read through a few abortion threads here and learn...
Well take your best shot at the argument. Where is the error in logic? By the way, I about spit the food out of my mouth when I read what you said! You may want to look up who Marquis is. By the way philosopher Peter Singer, a Pro Choice Philosopher who even argues for the moral acceptability of infanticide, said he considers Marquis' article Why Abortion is Immoral the best on the topic and uses it in his philosophy class! I merely summarized the main premises and conclusion.
Don's opinions become meaningless in the light of the right of women to their own bodies. A person's life has only the value others place on it. IF a fetus has the rights of a person then it also has the restrictions....it cannot use another's body to sustain it's life, you can't, I can't, no one can not even the fetus. Have you read any threads in this forum? It's quite an education.
Two-thirds of fertilized human eggs never reach term. 50% are miscarried within the first 12 days. In 2015, over 300,000 women died of complications in pregnancy. Just say'n.
I'm not going to let you get away with avoiding the argument above. I'd be interested to hear where you think the logic is incorrect. At this point the argument isn't even addressing whether an abortion should be legal or illegal. It's only addressing whether it's an immoral or moral act. If you agree that one of the reasons killing an adult is ordinarily wrong is because you rob the person of their future of value, and if you also agree with the second premise that an abortion robs the fetus of a future of value, but still think abortion is not immoral, then demonstrate where the conclusion went wrong. And by the way I read through many of the threads and they're the same arguments I've heard a million times. - - - Updated - - - Those are interesting stats but they don't address the argument made in the OP.
I didn't avoid the argument, I showed where it's OK to have an OPINION ,like Don expressed as long as that OPINION doesn't interfere with people's rights. His OPINION is meaningless to me. Since "morals" are an individual thing it's silly to argue them. If a woman doesn't think it's immoral to have an abortion, she has the right to have one. If a woman thinks it's immoral to have an abortion she has the right to not have one. Again, a person's life has only the value others place on it. If you want to judge on "future value" then is it worse to kill a wealthy, ambitious person than a poor or unambitious person?
Clearly this is confused. If ethics is relative to individual perspective why on earth are you posting? You're making claims about what people ought to do but then completely undermine your own claims by saying all "ought" claims are merely opinion and therefore have no truth content: 1) opinions shouldn't interfere with people's rights = which according to you is an opinion and therefore doesn't have to be listened to, 2) morals are an individual thing = opinion, 3) women have a right to abortion = opinion, 4) life only has value others place on it = opinion (further irony - this would include a woman's body too right?). You claim that ideas about abortion are merely opinions with no truth content, not realizing that this makes your views just as arbitrary and empty. But these aren't just opinions, they're claims supported by reasons, which makes them arguments- which means they have truth content - so we evaluate the strength of these claims logically to see if they are strong or weak. But this means you have to give reasons/evidence for what you claim and you have to give reasons and evidence for why you are dismissing someone else's view. My recommendation: pick up an introduction to ethics text and read what the best minds have to say about all sides of this issue: Peter Singer, Don Marquis, Michael Tooley, Mary Anne Warren, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Jane English, Joel Feinberg, etc.
It is a challenging argument, however, there are a few concerns: 1) when and where does a embryo become someone with a future like ours? Singer has made the argument that twinning seems to cause Marquis problems since there are two distinct persons (possibly more) that can emerge after this stage - this would mean that there is no distinct particular entity with a future that can be directly tied to it (specifically), 2) it appears that Marquis moves back and forth between potentiality and actuality: to have a future seems to require that one is an entity with a specific identity, but does the fetus have an identity? Does this require personhood? If so, what criteria are being used? Obviously Marquis doesn't offer this because he believes his position obviates the need for personhood claims, but its not clear to me that he has avoided this issue (I admit this is a bit ambiguous and more would have to be said here), and 3) the problem of cloning (I think is the fatal objection), it appears that if Marquis rejects the claim about having to be a person to have a future and that the potential future of an entity can have moral value - but if we understand that the vast majority of the cells in our bodies contain DNA, and we currently have the technology to isolate DNA and clone whole organisms from it, then we have potentially billions of individuals that could have a future like ours that we are preventing from coming into being by choosing not to clone. If Marquis is right, it's not entirely clear that in choosing not to clone these cells we are not depriving individuals of "futures like ours." I know Marquis wants to say that abortions early enough in which the embryo (or blastocyst) is not sufficiently human-like to warrant protection would be acceptable - but how does he make this case without invoking some type of personhood argument? - -this is an area of ambiguity in his position.
The bolded parts are not necessarily true, therefore those premises are false. The italicized words are subjective and should not be part of any logical argument. 1. It is ordinarily wrong to kill an adult because it deprives that adult of a future of value. 2. Abortion also deprives the fetus of a future that is equally as valuable as an adult's future. 3. Therefore, it is ordinarily equally as wrong to kill a fetus as it is to kill an adult. Arguments based on false premises are not sound and not valid. Subjectivity weakens the logic of any argument. Those are errors in logic you are searching for.
As soon as Donny Boy gets pregnant he can follow his opinion however he wishes...until then his opinion is worthless.
Okay, Ill play. There are thousands of children that will never feel loved or valued. They were given up and made wards of the state. Anyone can adopt these children and make them feel loved and valued. How many would you like? If the answer is ZERO, then you value them the same at those who abort them.
The law says we can't interfere with rights....and women have them. Nope, fact. Not every person has the same morals or ideas of what moral is. One person may think abortion is moral and another think it's immoral. , Nope, law. Yes, that's why we have things like executions, murder, wars......women's lives have value, too. No, I have facts and laws backing up my opinions. I don't care what those individuals have to say on abortion. It is legal and women have a right to their own bodies just like everyone else.
You commit the subjectivist fallacy (one of the many logical fallacies). This happens when the conclusions of an argument are rejected not based on whether the premises support the conclusion but by claiming the conclusion is subjective (an "opinion) when it is, in fact, objective.
Just a little refresher on how normal people see things. Sane people require justification for an act normally understood as wrong. It is obvious to all sane people that killing other people is wrong. This is evidenced by the fact that there has never been a society in all of human history in which murder was legal. The law did not inform people that murder was wrong, that's obvious to all sane people. Rather, the consistency of human morality dictates the consistency of that law. When you hear someone talking about killing another person, especially the most innocent and helpless among us, at any stage of development as if it requires no justification, or talking as if we need legislation to inform us as to what is right and wrong or who is a person and who is not, it is very likely that that person is what normal people refer to as a psychopath. The main physical difference between a normal, or sane, person and a psychopath is a notable deficiency in the white matter tract connecting the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex, called the uncinate fasciculus, primarily its left side, in the brain of the psychopath. If this post makes little sense to you, particularly the longest two paragraphs, you may suffer from psychopathy. If you're not sure and would like to know, you can submit your head to a diffusion tensor MRI scan, and a professional will be able to tell you.
Thank you for the thoughtful response Regarding twinning, although it is an interesting question, since that occurs for most by day 4 or 5 after fertilization and implantation typically starts at day 6 and finishes around day 12, this question would not really relate to the question of abortion. Or am I missing something here? Regarding the question of identity, which is related to point 3, I would say that all that is necessary to be the subject of harm by being deprived of a future of value is to be a determinate individual being. In that case you are subtracting the future that being would have. Perhaps in the legal sense personhood would need to be established to render abortion legal or illegal (I'm not sure) but in the ethical sense I am not convinced it is necessary. Regarding point 3, remember Marquis' solution to the "standoff" between the pro choicers and pro lifers is to look at why killing an adult is ordinarily wrong and to see if that can be applied to a fetus. If it can also be applied to a fetus then there is a strong argument that abortion is prima facie wrong. So, as in killing an adult, there needs to be an actual subject of harm not a potential subject of harm. This is about killing after all. In the case of the cells in our body having DNA, there is no qualitatively distinct individual entity possessing a FOV so there is no moral equivalency to killing an adult or a fetus.
A few thoughts here. I am surprised you said that the subjective elements in the premises are the words "ordinarily" and the bolded statements are the ones that are not always true. Isn't this backwards? I would have thought you would have this reversed. Ordinarily simply mens usually. He is saying that it isn't always wrong to kill an adult and deprive them of a future of value. In other words, he isn't arguing a pacifist position. And I would have guessed you would argue his claiming future has value would be subjective. I would argue that there are no subjective statements here either in the use of the word "ordinarily" or "future of value". The loss of our lives and therefore our futures in one of the greatest losses we can experience. Our loss includes time with our family, projects, places to visit, seeing our children grow up, wonderful music, and a host of other things we currently value and other things we would come to value in the future. As Marquis points out, the gravity of this loss is confirmed by listening to those on their death beads. Are you really arguing that the loss of our future is not one of the greatest losses a person can experience and one of the main reasons killing an adult is ordinarily wrong?
Like FoxHastings you confuse opinion with a well reasoned argument. If you desire to be a rational human being, which I hope you do, before you can claim Marquis' conclusion is "worthless" as a mere opinion, you need to show a problem with the premises or how he falsely deduced the conclusion from the premises. Otherwise you are guilty of of the subjectivist fallacy. Remember, logical fallacies are largely avoidance techniques. They are ways to dismiss arguments so you don't have to deal with them in an honest and intelligent fashion. - - - Updated - - - I'd love to read why you think this.
Only that is a picture of a viable foetus How many abortions are on viable foetuses - ones before 22 weeks? Oh! And have you never heard of "brain death"? Heart is still beating
Okay - let us start with the basics - does every conception become a human being? When is viability? When does "life" start? Can we begin with those and then move on to the question of conceptus as a parasite?
By that measure abortion MUST be correct because it has been practiced throughout history - never quite legal but the mechanisms for aborting unwanted pregnancy - especially through use of abortifacients is known and practiced in ever culture in every land Some more marginal peoples in the world practiced infanticide on a regular basis as a means of survival of the group
