As to FOV, some time ago I asked what it is and how it is assessed. A problem is that you refer to it as a "future" consideration. I don't know what that is. I think what you have in mind is a present value. That is, at this moment, according to you (near as I can tell) there exists a quantifier that expresses the present value of your future. Let's suppose there is. What does it mean? How do you calculate it? And finally, what difference does it make - who should care? And while you're working this out, remember that your guy Marquis did not do any of this. — tim wood

In, the 20th century, easily a billion people had negative FOVs. But what would it mean? Answer: it would mean nothing. Any decision based on an FOV would needs be based on other considerations as well. — tim wood

The loss of this FOV is that which "ultimately makes killing wrong." Don't you mean that it is the loss of the potential, the possibilities, of the future, that is part of what makes killing wrong? — tim wood

t forget that it is not the killing itself that is the problem, but the cause, reason, and circumstances of the killing. — tim wood

And finally, if you're correct and this FOV is the parameter, the measure, you claim it is, then what prevents us from killing those with a bad FOV? — tim wood

Implicit in this notion of an FOV is the idea that the victim suffers the loss. How? The victim is dead. Please make clear how the victim suffers the loss of his or her FOV. In death, that which can suffer ceases to be. — tim wood

It's empty foolish assertion, empty foolish argument, and empty foolish conclusions. And all unnecessary. I'm of a mind that Marquis knows this now and knew it when he wrote it. The people who buy it either are foolish - "Hey, people have an FOV, no more abortion!" Or knowing its failures and flaws, have notwithstanding adapted it to their own ends to persuade the ignorant and thoughtless. — tim wood

But just because I assume them does not mean that they're true — tim wood

or that in virtue of my assuming you are compelled to accept them as true. — tim wood

you would understand that you are compelled to acknowledge that the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. — tim wood

Do you understand that an argument - most arguments, all that I can think of - comprise premises and a conclusion. One argues for and supports the premises, and then exhibits the conclusion as following from the premises as a matter of form, with flourishes as desired. — tim wood

Look. The sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. I prove it thus: premise: the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. I assume that's true. Therefore, the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. — tim wood

you're wasting your time and your interlocutors — tim wood

If that was true, we could expect resolution in the form of one side coming to its senses. — frank

As for the personhood of the foetus, why would she be expected to argue the obvious? The foetus is not a person; "the fetus does not possess a great deal in the way of agency — Banno

sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. — Banno

. A foetus does not have the characteristics one would reasonably associate with being a person - autonomy, rationality, and so on, whatever you like. A personality. — Banno

Your comment does properly recognize that the pro-choice crowd uses an arbitrary moment to define when human life begins, but you fail to recognize that the pro-life crowd does as well. Conception is an arbitrary moment to declare the existence of human life, as is quickening. as is the trimester framework — Hanover

But more to this point. Marquis's argument seems a real tar-baby for you. But there's an effective solvent ready to hand. Just wash your hands of it. You know his argument. Own it and rebuild it without his presumptions. — tim wood

A fetus does not express desires and we can only speculate about what it might think about existing. It that is the nature of creating someone. — Andrew4Handel

So here you are: Rank Amateur will now demonstrate the immorality of abortion. — tim wood

he morning star — Terrapin Station

SO my question again: where do you get your idea that the fetus has rights? — tim wood

A better example comes from your own post:
,that is the fetus does have a right to live, does it have a right to the use of the woman's body.
— Rank Amateur
Where do you get the idea the fetus has any rights? In Roe v. Wade it's argued that such have potential rights coincident with the rights they would actually have if and when born alive, but not until. That's the US Supreme Court, referring to practice "from time immemorial." — tim wood

A better example comes from your own post:
,that is the fetus does have a right to live, does it have a right to the use of the woman's body.
— Rank Amateur
Where do you get the idea the fetus has any rights? In Roe v. Wade it's argued that such have potential rights coincident with the rights they would actually have if and when born alive, but not until. That's the US Supreme Court, referring to practice "from time immemorial — tim wood

Most briefly, it's a hypothetical argument. All of the important premises are granted uncritically. With such an argument you can prove anything you want to prove. It may not be immediately apparent how that can be. Suppose I wish to suppose the moon is made of green cheese. Let's accept as given, even prima facie, as Marquis says, that the moon is made of green cheese. Therefore the moon is made of... & etc. QED. And I hold the entire FOV argument to be a thing claimed and assumed, but in no way demonstrated or prove or even subjected to critical thought. — tim wood

In the argument he presented Rank Amateur posited that the reason for not killing a human was found in its future value, and hence by extension, the reason for not killing of a foetus was found in its future. I cited the capabilities approach in contrast to this. The worth of a person ought to be taken as read; they are to be treated as an ends, not as a means. We ought then act in ways that lead to actualisation of the capabilities of each person. What a person is, is found in those capabilities. — Banno

Rank Amateur's desire is to have the argument expressed in terms that suit him. Don't play along.

How about you show where the propositions are false, or the conclusion does not follow, or the argument is incomplete and fallacious because .... and support your because.

Make an argument specifically why your cyst does not have a right to its existence. So far I have only seen pronouncements stated as fact.

Seems a pattern on TPF. If one makes an argument one doesn't like, dismiss it out of hand, and restate your own position. — Banno

This seems an existence question: does there exist such a circumstance, such a reason? We might first ask what counts as "morally justified"? But there is a simple reason usually adduced: when the mother at risk. Done? Is that it? — tim wood

This is in contrast to an approach that gives priority to the foetus, ignoring the role of the woman. — Banno