how about we go with Tacit Consent ? Is that better ??

Because the obligation is not absolute or all encompassing. There is an obligation to support the child, but that obligation does not extend to your bodily integrity. You have asked why, before, and my answer would be that your body is the only connection to the outside world you, as a consciousness, have, and is therefore central to your freedom. As such, it is strongly protected. — Echarmion

So, in some type of summary, To the question I proposed, although you seem to believe in the concept of an implied consent, you point is it does not apply to pre birth, because it seems your view is bodily integrity is a stronger claim.

just a matter of opinion on the relative speculation of a necessary being versus (fill in the blank). Science knows what it knows, and more importantly knows what it does not know.

Pre, very very very early Big Bang, science has no knowledge or even anything it would even elevate to a formal definition of theory.

Everything you or me or Steven Weinberg says is some degree of speculation

If causality is absent in the laws of physics, then why does anyone expect the creation event to have a cause? — Inis

Excellent question, just an entire world full of fools I guess.

TP, I am fine with almost all the non- God possible answers. But the finite uuniverse, which at this moment of our understanding is the scientific consensus, most definitely posits the question how did something come from nothing. We have seen where GR breaks down into quantum mechanics, maybe if we can bridge that gap some new insight develops. QM would suggest that matter isn't matter until it is observed, and what we perceive as our universe is not much different than a movie screen, and there maybe multiple planes of movie screens forming a block of time, and and and. All of which is possible. However, Something like a necessary being is a possible answer as well. Maybe at some point we will know. Maybe when we leave this broke down palace.

Correct, within the same reference frame. While in the Universe, it can be said there was nothing of the Universe before it’s first moment. Nonetheless, both propositions, together or separately, are not sufficient to logically eliminate some other reference frame which suffices to falsify the conclusion “there was nothing before that”. — Mww

No problem with that at all.

As long as knowledge is unattainable, pure speculation is allowed. But just because pure speculation is allowed does not serve as warrant to usurp logical or rational rules. — Mww

Agree, didn't think I did, and if so, not intentionall. What we know, we know. What don't know is a open to a free exchange of ideas. Including, the TPF heresy of such a thing as God

please, you made a declarative statement

Financial interests don't have the same moral weight as the integrity of life and limb. — Echarmion

In general we follow those with support, so the person you are talking to can address it.


And as a reminder, the necessary base assumption for the sake of argument is the fetus is a moral entity. It is a conflict of claims on bodily autonomy in this argument.

If you don't want to participate in that line of logic because you can't grand the concession for sake of the argument, I am 100% fine with that.

So, back to the argument if, as you say you are the parents have an obligation to the child by nature of the act of having sex, why does that obligation not extend pre birth, again, for the sake of this argument the fetus is something with moral standing.

your right it doesn't - can't believe the amount of time and effort we humans have put into that question for the last couple of thousand years. Waste of time.

because ???

I said Ok, Ok, and now Ok. I was wrong, there is no such thing as causality in physics - I bend to your overwhelming knowledge on the subject. Not really sure what level of victory you are looking for.

Because the parents are the ones most closely associated to the creation of the child. Given that a child has certain material needs in order to develop, who else is supposed to shoulder this burden if not the parents? — Echarmion

and the difference between that and, the taking care of the material needs before birth ? Again, an assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral entity.

No. You are wrong and im explaining why. — DingoJones

That is the reason I stop. Why continue ? We each made our point, You seemed quite convinced. There was not going to be anything more of value to say. Why continue ?

how many ok's do you want

Ok

Something doesn't come *from* nothing. You can call it uncaused if you wish, but notice how absurd the idea is if something is caused to exist at all. If "somethingness" is caused to exist, it has to be caused to exist by something. — MindForged

I agree - but if the universe is finite. By definition it had a first moment. so also by definitnon there was nothing before that. So there was nothing - than there was something. How?

Your answer seems to be, is something cant come from nothing, but it did, so it didn't - I am lost in you logic. And pretty sure it is my fault.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

Im sorry sir, but you are. The use of “consent” is being misapplied in direct service to you making the argument that taking on risk includes consent. It doesnt. This is the framing that im talking about, the structure (via misapplying the word “consent”) you are using to make your argument. It services your stance in abortion, but the framing is erroneous therefore it does not support your stance the way you think it does. — DingoJones

The name of the concept is "implied consent" I didn't chose it. You can surely make a case the concept doesn't apply. But it has nothing at all do to with my framing. I am just looking at the concept that is both moral and legal, and asking if it applies here.

Why are you quoting this? Are we talking about the law, or the morality? I was under the impression its the latter you are concerned with, but you go on to insert more legal factors about doctors and consent forms...you are missing the point about the doctor example, and just muddying the waters.
Intentional or not, you are obfuscating here. — DingoJones

In this case both.

Im sorry sir but this illustrates profound confusion. Please notice that you didnt mention consent at all in that, not even your previous, incorrect use of the term. Im not trying to be rude, but you havent flipped the logic at all. You have merely sidestepped and then tried to drag me down an alleyway with you. Your use of my example fails, as the robber is not assuming the risk of an innocent person coming down the street. Thats not risk, that is the whole point of the robbers plans of robbing. Its his hope that someone comes by for him to rob. So I think you’ve jumbled things up a bit here, as I mentioned before you are mis-using the term consent here and from that basis you have become confused. You said you understand but I cannot see how that's possible given your response. — DingoJones

no worries - we disagree. On to the next

If there indeed was a first moment of time, it cannot have been caused because there's nothing — MindForged

no matter how you cut it, you are saying that from nothing - there was something - that was not caused. Can't see how with that understanding - you can rule out a an un-created creator. It seems you are ruling it out as a possibility - simply because you want to rule it out.

so you are willing to allow, for some reason, an exception to the rule of causation ? Why?

That does not make sense to me. Your initial argument was that the mother implicitly consented to the use of her body by the fetus. That implies that you accept the notion of bodily autonomy, which holds that no other person has a right to use my body, or parts of it, without consent. Since the fetus is using the body of the mother, it is doing something that is not generally permissible, like the robber in my example. — Echarmion

actually what I argued was. by her action of free will, she was responsible for the possible outcomes of that action. So to put back in your example. Between the mother and the fetus, the only one who made an act of free will was the mother. The fetus was the innocent. It was just becoming a fetus. Like your innocent person just walking down the block.

And yes, i completely agree with your concept of bodily autonomy - that is the nature of the question - does sex imply consent to the possible outcome. Obvioulsy the world right now says no. And it could be right, but i don't think the question is without merit.

You need to establish that the person in question, if they had been fully aware of all facts, would have consented. This is not the case for unwanted pregnancies just as it is not the case for car accidents. — Echarmion

are you trying to say that the woman was not fully aware that sex can cause pregnancy? That last sentence of yours, at least as i see it now, makes no sense at all.

so after all that, should the Dad be required to pay child support ??
— Rank Amateur

Yes. — Echarmion

why ??

No, if we are using the legal definitions of the term, at least approximately, then you can implicitly consent to someone elses actions. That's actually the main practical application of the notion of implied consent, for things like life-saving surgery. Given the way you framed your argument, it also seems to me you effectively consider the fetus another person. — Echarmion

I am not entirely sure what you are saying here, but consent and responsibility aren't correlated in the way you seem to imply. The responsibility of the person acting for the consequences of that action are unrelated to whether or not the person that is acted upon has consented. You can be responsible for moral or otherwise permissible actions, the question just doesn't usually come up. — Echarmion

I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. In your example the robber is the woman and the fetus is innocent walking down the street.

Could you elaborate on why you would exclude an unwanted pregnancy from the list of "accidents"? — Echarmion

because it does not require the deliberate of even accidental activity of a 3rd party. If the woman and man have sex, there is some probability - solely due to their actions alone - that they may become pregnant.

What I was trying to say is that there are different levels of justification necessary for the outcomes. In order for someone else to have "access" (to use a very general term) to your body, consent is necessary. In order to be held criminally accountable, you need to be guilty. In order to be asked to shoulder the financial burdens resulting from a risk, it can be sufficient that you are the person most closely associated with the risk, e.g. because you derived some kind of benefit from the action that caused the risk. Provided that there is no other actor who is more responsible.

The details will differ according to the specific laws, but here is another example: If you build a house, and an earthquake then damages the house to such an extend that it is a danger to the neighbors or passersby, you can be obligated to have the house torn down, at your expense. You did not consent to the earthquake and are not responsible for it, yet you still have to shoulder the costs because it's your house. — Echarmion

so after all that, should the Dad be required to pay child support ??

- understand - however if there are predictable consensuses of the action we tend to hold people responsible for them.

In the case of the robbery, there are 2 acts of free will, one walking down the street, and the robber's to rob them. If I flip your logic to the robber it goes like this - I am a robber it is what I do, I work this street - there is some probability that some innocent person will walk down it, if they do I rob them. I am not responsible, because they walked down the street.

this is a legal definition of Implied consent:

"The assumption that a person has given permission for an action, which is inferred from his or her actions, rather than expressly or explicitly provided."

So there is some room for argument on granting or not granting that assumption. In the case o, for lack of a better word " accidents", - your robber, car driver etc" I would argue that assuming the risk, if needed it not a permission for the accident. I would not make the same case for sex.

In the example of the surgeon, before the operation you will sign to agree to the possible risks, and relieve the surgeon of most responsibilities - to specifically avoid an area of implied consent, and make it explicit.

You are only framing it that way to support your position, but it doesn't make as much sense as you think it does. You are mis-usung the word consent in this instance. — DingoJones

I am framing it in any position, just raising an issue that is part of the discussion. I think maybe yes, you think maybe no, we chat and see what happens.

always kind of thought if the world is finite, it lent some weight to the concept of an un-created - creator, or a non-contingent being. What am I missing?

yea understand - it really only makes sense if you could assume for the sake of argument the fetus is a moral actor. Didn't say that - because thought would generate like 6 pages

To use an absurd example: Walking down a dark street might entail a non-zero chance of being robbed, but I do not implicitly consent to that outcome just by taking the risk. — Echarmion

My response would be that the robbery is the action of another. You can't implicitly consent to someone else's action.

, I think. It's not that the father implicitly consented to paying child support in the event of a child being born. It's that society defers the financial burden created by the child on the person who is responsible for creating the risk in the first place. — Echarmion

Not sure I understand the difference i those 2 points, seems to be saying the exact same thing twice, using different words. What am I missing ?

Interested your guys view on the concept of Implied consent on the right of the fetus to the use of the woman's body.

the logic goes something like this:

People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions.

Pregnancy is predictable consequence of sex, birth control can very effectively reduce, but not eliminate that this consequence.

By freely entering into sex, where pregnancy is a predictable consequence, there is an implied consent that the fetus has a right to the use of the woman's body.

As an example: A woman decides to have a baby, against the wishes of the father. He doesn't want the baby. Baby comes, she sues him for child support - and in general wins. The reason being that the child was a result of his willful act, with a child as a possible consequence.

it is not good philosophy because it makes absolutely no attempt to be good philosophy. Quite the contrary, Judge Blackmun states -

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The core underlying statement of fact in the decision, that allows the killing of the fetus, is the court does not really know when life begins, and they don't need to resolve it.

As I mentioned earlier - the case was about the privacy clause in the 14th amendment. Roe claimed the woman's right was absolute up to birth, The court, with the wisdom of Solomon - looked to split the difference and came up with:

"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

And allowed states to establish some guidelines for when and when not - the prior post above about the fetus was to be a rational for establishing some guidance to the states on such a guidelines.

In short - the court ruled the woman's choice to have an abortion was protected by the 14th amendment
it however was not absolute
the court relied on prior legal criteria on if the fetus had standing, saying it did not, while acknowledging all along that it has no real knowledge of when human life begins.

quite a few times.

There is dispute on how good or bad a legal decision it was. But there is really no dispute it is bad philosophy.

excerpts from the majority opinion on the nature of the fetus:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception.We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes “viable,” that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of “mediate animation,” that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this “ensoulment” theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [410 U.S. 113, 161] the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a “process” over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the “morning-after” pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. 62

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. 63 That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [410 U.S. 113, 162] courts have squarely so held. 64 In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents’ interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes “compelling.”

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the “compelling” point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.

Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those “procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother,” sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, “saving” the mother’s life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67

think that some moral considerations are not black and white, and that abortion is the sort of action that falls in that category. The best way to proceed, in such cases, is to allow people to make the decision on their own because the complexity of the situation is too great for a universal prescriptive rule. — Moliere

Who gets to speak for the fetus in that case? And that was the point I am making, are you 100% sure it deserves no moral standing in the discussion?

Hrrmmm? Have we talked about a/theism and science before? I honestly don't remember.

FWIW, I try to be consistent. Obviously I fail at times. — Moliere

Not specific to you, just a side rant. But at is core the issue of personhood is a denial of biology in favor of “something else. Just find it ironic

one other point, forgive me the laziness of not finding it, but I think you made a point to S that morality wasn’t black and white, it was on some type of a continuum. If so, and we are something less than sure about the morality of an action with irreversible consequences, what would you say is the right way to proceed?

I make no capacity argument for the fetus at all its claim to future, just like ours is pure biology.

The life Tim wood is living right now was at one time a completely unique fetus that could only ever become one thing with one unique future- the thing that became to be known as Tim wood. That entire amount of time from then to now was at different points its future, then its present, and then its past. And that is just plain fact.

activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments
— Rank Amateur

So in murder these are the future-goods which are deprived, according to your rationale for murder being categorized as wrong.

Now I would say a bird has activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- eating, building a nest, whatever the now feels like to a bird, and the pleasures of birds. Dogs too. Animals of all sorts have a future of this sort. And they also have a value.

But I would say that animals are not as valuable as humans. I don't say this with respect to their biology -- as clearly humans are just animals as all the rest -- but because of the ethical category they fall into. — Moliere

Agree, and in the actual argument marquis address it. But the argument is not about any future, it is about a future, like ours.

For myself I would just say murder is the immoral and intentional killing of a person -- immoral because sometimes the killing of person's is warranted, even if it is not praiseworthy. It is permissable -- such as cases of self-defense, in cases of war, and in cases of euthanasia (in order from less to more controversial). Whether a person has a future or not, such as the case where a person does not wake up from a coma, is not relevant to my thoughts -- the person has value regardless of their future. — Moliere

I have addressed this issue in the argument, and it is about non-justified killing. Hopping not to run off into a side argument, I ask we don't spend time arguing what is or is not justified.

To me it seems that your own argument sneaks personhood, of this sort, in by referencing the activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- things which, say, a stone or an apple will not have. It just misses some of the important things that makes us specifically persons, rather than just beasts, and then tries to write off personhood accounts by saying the personhood of such-and-such does not matter, its the future of such-and-such that does. For msyelf the history matters ethically because it's the history of persons -- its not just any future, its the future of persons. But maybe there is some way of construing the future in a way that does not reference activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments -- or maybe there is some way to differentiate this from animals while at the same time not resembling what most of us mean by persons. But I'm not seeing how. — Moliere

The entire purpose of the FOV argument is to avoid the personhood issue.

In short form it is quite simple and intuitively true.

Despite the coffee shop philosophy, we - people like you and me have a future that we value.
A significant harm of killing us is the loss of that future

Now the biology

About 2 weeks after conception there is a unique human organism

You, me and every human on the planet can directly trace our existence in time and space as a biological entity to such a unique organism that could only have been us.

What you moliere are living right now was the future of that one unique organism at one time.

The argument is it is wrong to unjustifiably deny a human future of value, like ours at anytime in our unique development

The argument is based mostly on pure biology, one inference that futures such as ours are valuable, and an application of ideal desire to the fetus

The argument has holes, mostly around the issue of ideal desire. But it had lasted 30 years because to a very high degree the premise is true and the logic is sound.

The thing that I always find ironic in these discussions is how so many folks, who value science so greatly in the theist, atheist discussions abandoned it in a heart beat in the personhood issue.

And the same folks how value reason so greatly in the theist,atheist discussions, are willing all kinds of twists of reason when it comes to the personhood issue, as below

The fetus is not a person because it does not have trait X
But there are all kinds of things we are happy to call persons that don't have trait X

Ok, let me modify trait X so it only applies to a fetus

Which just make the argument a fetus is not a person because the fetus is not a person

As your, it is not sentience, it is the history of sentience that is important, There is only one kind of human without a history of sentience, a fetus at some stage. Take out all the parts in the middle and your point is just a fetus is not a person because it’s a fetus

Perhaps not, but you argue the fetus has an FOV like a person. Sorry, but this step doesn't hold. — tim wood

Because, you go on

What you argue that a fetus has, is in terms that do not bestow any moral worth, and in such terms that steer as far away as possible from anything reasonable. — tim wood

Because, you go on

. It has a future. Well does it? It has a possible future, and that future is problematic; viz, there's a possible future, and that possibility is subject to probability. So there is no future per se. Further, what is this future? Properly considered it is just nothing at all - a convenient fiction. Disagree? On what grounds? If the future is not-yet, how do you get from here to there or there to here? Perhaps you argue we can think about it. Think about what? The future? Again, that's not available. The trick lies in properly identifying that all we have to work with is the now, in the now. For you to confuse anything of the now with the not-yet of the future is just a mistake fatal to your argument.[/quote

In that entire description of “future “. Is there any part of that only applies to the fetus and not to Tim wood?

If there is, I don’t see it. All it says is the fetus doesn’t have a future like ours, and then a paragraph about your view on the concept about future.

But nothing that differentiate your future from the fetus

You have not even tried to support the lead sentence — tim wood

not the point of the argument. As with Tim, I am not in any delusion that I would change your mind, just think it is always useful to hear the counter argument.


As an aside to you both. The pro choice academics really only attack the argument on the ideal desire point. Saying one does not get the assumption of ideal desire until one can have a desire, or cognative ability in week 25 give or take

There were other objections earlier in life of the argument, that have been addressed and Answered.

your right, you win the argument is awful and is completely destroyed by your awesome summation.

I never for a second believed it would change anyone’s mind. Just thought thoughtful people like to consider arguments counter to their beliefs.

Time to call it a night

it makes absolutely no attempt to do so, nor is personhood of the fetus a requirement of the argument.

OK, as long as we note that a foetus cannot survive independently. — Banno

That's what the no problem was for

no problem

you are trying very hard to add the concept of personhood into the argument, and I have made no claim at all the fetus is a person. The argument does not require it.