Really?! And what exactly do you understand this "possession" to entail, or mean? What is it that is possessed? — tim wood

it was explained with the concept or ideal desire, and it is possessed exactly the same way you possess yours. If your future is not yours, who's is it ?

What is it that bestows a special status on this "zygote" that at the same time deprives sperm or egg of that same status? — tim wood

it has a new and unique genetic make up, and it is a embryonic stem cell, able to generate every organ in the body - again it was explained

What does this mean??? What is a future value? Think it through: hint, look at the word "is." The notion of "future value" comes from finance, and of it at least one thing is true: never ever not ever do you "possess" a future value. What you have is a present assessment - maybe. Further, the FV of, for example, of a stream of payments is estimated within an extremely narrow set of probabilities over a an extremely narrow set of possibilities - which considerations have precisely nothing - zero - to do with estimating the so-called FOV of a life. — tim wood

yet again it was fully explained and defined in P1 - it has nothing at all to do with your financial point, that is pure dribble - if you have an issue with the definition happy to address

From the Marquis paper:
The analysis assumes that killing me (or you, reader) is prima facie seriously wrong. The point
of the analysis is to establish which natural property ultimately explains the wrongness of the killing,given that it is wrong. I'm sorry to ask, but do you understand what is going on in this kind of ann argument? Preaching to the choir is one name.

It's time to construct and own your own arguments. These from Don Marquis aren't worthy. — tim wood

thanks for the opinion and the suggestion -

Implicit in Marquis's argument is that when the victim's death is, then the victim is too. I, myself, would argue that nothing hurts a dead person. In fact it is one of the appeals of death to the old - and sometimes not so old - that when death is, they are no longer. Someone with Marquis's background knows this quote perfectly well. If his argument was intended to be substantive, he would have had to deal with it. — tim wood

since you liked it once before, we are in violent agreement here, the point yet once again was made inside the argument - that the mere change of biological state involved in murder is not nearly sufficient harm - from there he goes on to posit that the real loss is your future and all that entails.

Since nearly every point you asked was covered in the argument, i am once again left with the supposition that you skim the argument, and with a pre determined position rattle of what ever prattle comes to the top of your head. You are just throwing darts.

You have not made a single valid point that shows any of the premises are false, or the conclusion does not follow. I though you asked that we try and do philosophy. Surgeon heal thyself.

OK ?? not really sure what to say to that. Thanks for the opinion I guess.

agree - that was the intent. As far as I know there are really only 2 good arguments against the existence of God. The argument from Evil, and a host of noseeum arguments - basically we have looked around and we don't see any evidence of God, so no God. most things are just a variation of those - and there are the all the God paradox ones that really don't merit an elevation to argument.

ha

for those on this thread - a little more complete argument -

ARGUMENT FOR THE FUTURE VALUE
Mostly stolen with some adaption from Dr. Don Marquis

P1. One definition of murder is the loss of one’s future of value

Any discussion on abortion needs to start with some theoretical account of the wrongness of killing. I would imagine most on here would have no issue with the assertion it is morally impermissible to, without justification, kill adult human beings like us. But why is it wrong to kill people like us? While we may want to suggest it is the loss others would experience due to our absence. But if that was all it was, it would allow the killing of hermits, or those who lead otherwise independent or friendless lives. A better answer would be the primary wrong done by the killing is the harm it does to the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. However is it simply the change in a biological state that make killing wrong? That seems insufficient. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which
would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.

P2. From a very early point in a pregnancy there is a unique human organism.

After the process of conception is completed there exists a new zygote cell. This cell has a unique genetic makeup. This zygote is an embryonic stem cell with the ability to generate every organ in the body. For the next 2 weeks or so, or until it is at the 16 cell stage it has the ability to split and twin. After this time, there exists a unique human organism, and this organism can only develop into a human.

P3. All adult humans undergo the same process of development

Currently, there is no other way to become an adult human being, than to start as a human ovam, and a human sperm, to undergo the process of conception and fertilization and the various stages of embryonic development leading to a birth of some type.

P4. Each human being on the planet can directly trace their past as a biological creature on earth from now back to their unique human organism as defined in P2

P5. All things that are part of a unique past time line as defined in P4, where at one time a future on the same time line.

P6. If P5, all human organisms as defined in P2 are on a unique time line that encompasses their unique human future much like ours

P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it as in P1.

One is in possession of one’s biological future whether or not one is aware of it or not. One is possession of ones one’s future of value even if one ( in most cases) does not desire it. As an example there can be a seriously depressed person, who do to the nature of their illness wishes to kill themselves and have no desire for their future. I would argue that it is not morally permissible to allow them to kill themselves because their judgement that their future is without value is handicapped by their illness. The concept of “ideal desire” would apply, and our judgement on the moral permissibly of them killing themselves should be based on what their ideal desire would be if their handicap was not there, and we would assume absent their depression they, like us would desire their future. In the second instance assume there was a person is a catatonic state, but with the real prospect of regaining conciseness, we could not say, that since this person is unaware of their future at that time, they are not in possession of it, the concept of ideal judgement would apply, and we should assume that if they were conscience they would be aware of their future and we should not let the handicap of the catatonic state deny them of their right to it. I argue that the same concept of “ideal desire” applies in the case of the fetus, and their handicap of the state of their development is not philosophically different then the prior 2 examples and we should assume that absent this handicap they would be aware, and desire their future of value as we do.

Conclusion

If P1 and one definition of murder is the loss of ones future of value and if P6 Shortly after the process of conception is complete, and very early in human development there is a unique human organism with a unique human future, and if P7 their awareness or desire for this future is not a condition of their possession of this future, taking of this human future of value is murder, and immoral.

Exceptions:

This argument holds for most cases, but not for all. If it can be shown that that there is not a future of value, say thorough embryonic DNA testing that there are sever issues this argument would allow such abortions. Since the argument hinges on there being a unique human organism and there can be a sound biological argument that one does not exist until after twinning this argument would not omit the morning after pill. Finally this argument would not omit infanticide as commonly practiced today with severely premature and physically challenged children facing lives without value as we outlined in P1.

last caveat - this argument makes no attempt at the next level argument that even if the fetus has a right not to be killed because of it life of future value, that does not necessarily give it the right to the use of the woman's body, that is a different argument that is pointless to have until this one is done. when this one is done - i am happy to do that one.

ARGUMENT FOR THE FUTURE VALUE
Mostly stolen with some adaption from Dr. Don Marquis

P1. One definition of murder is the loss of one’s future of value

Any discussion on abortion needs to start with some theoretical account of the wrongness of killing. I would imagine most on here would have no issue with the assertion it is morally impermissible to, without justification, kill adult human beings like us. But why is it wrong to kill people like us? While we may want to suggest it is the loss others would experience due to our absence. But if that was all it was, it would allow the killing of hermits, or those who lead otherwise independent or friendless lives. A better answer would be the primary wrong done by the killing is the harm it does to the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. However is it simply the change in a biological state that make killing wrong? That seems insufficient. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which
would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.

P2. From a very early point in a pregnancy there is a unique human organism.

After the process of conception is completed there exists a new zygote cell. This cell has a unique genetic makeup. This zygote is an embryonic stem cell with the ability to generate every organ in the body. For the next 2 weeks or so, or until it is at the 16 cell stage it has the ability to split and twin. After this time, there exists a unique human organism, and this organism can only develop into a human.

P3. All adult humans undergo the same process of development

Currently, there is no other way to become an adult human being, than to start as a human ovam, and a human sperm, to undergo the process of conception and fertilization and the various stages of embryonic development leading to a birth of some type.

P4. Each human being on the planet can directly trace their past as a biological creature on earth from now back to their unique human organism as defined in P2

P5. All things that are part of a unique past time line as defined in P4, where at one time a future on the same time line.

P6. If P5, all human organisms as defined in P2 are on a unique time line that encompasses their unique human future much like ours

P7 One’s awareness or desire for one’s future of value does not impact the moral permissiveness of taking it as in P1.

One is in possession of one’s biological future whether or not one is aware of it or not. One is possession of ones one’s future of value even if one ( in most cases) does not desire it. As an example there can be a seriously depressed person, who do to the nature of their illness wishes to kill themselves and have no desire for their future. I would argue that it is not morally permissible to allow them to kill themselves because their judgement that their future is without value is handicapped by their illness. The concept of “ideal desire” would apply, and our judgement on the moral permissibly of them killing themselves should be based on what their ideal desire would be if their handicap was not there, and we would assume absent their depression they, like us would desire their future. In the second instance assume there was a person is a catatonic state, but with the real prospect of regaining conciseness, we could not say, that since this person is unaware of their future at that time, they are not in possession of it, the concept of ideal judgement would apply, and we should assume that if they were conscience they would be aware of their future and we should not let the handicap of the catatonic state deny them of their right to it. I argue that the same concept of “ideal desire” applies in the case of the fetus, and their handicap of the state of their development is not philosophically different then the prior 2 examples and we should assume that absent this handicap they would be aware, and desire their future of value as we do.

Conclusion

If P1 and one definition of murder is the loss of ones future of value and if P6 Shortly after the process of conception is complete, and very early in human development there is a unique human organism with a unique human future, and if P7 their awareness or desire for this future is not a condition of their possession of this future, taking of this human future of value is murder, and immoral.

Exceptions:

This argument holds for most cases, but not for all. If it can be shown that that there is not a future of value, say thorough embryonic DNA testing that there are sever issues this argument would allow such abortions. Since the argument hinges on there being a unique human organism and there can be a sound biological argument that one does not exist until after twinning this argument would not omit the morning after pill. Finally this argument would not omit infanticide as commonly practiced today with severely premature and physically challenged children facing lives without value as we outlined in P1.

last caveat - this argument makes no attempt at the next level argument that even if the fetus has a right not to be killed because of it life of future value, that does not necessarily give it the right to the use of the woman's body, that is a different argument that is pointless to have until this one is done. when this one is done - i am happy to do that one.

sorry one more important part, if we determine there is a morally justified reason to kill the fetus due to its nature we are done.

If however we determine there is no morally justifiable reason to kill the fetus, we now need to determine if the fetus has a claim on use of the mother's body.

I think that is the base of the first order argument- await where the agreement and disagreement in the set up is, before proceeding.

and finally for now I would propose that in all topics on abortion there is a first order question, and that is, is it morally permissible. Because if or if it not morally permissible would have a philosophic impact on the legal and societal questions


Await your feedback

next can we agree that without justification, (and for the sake of staying on topic be generous to each other and allow we would generally have same definition of justification) it is immoral to deliberately end a human life after birth.

If we can agree on the biology that each unique human life begins at conception, and if can agree that it is immoral to end that life after birth.

Than can we agree that the nature of that human between those 2 points is a determining factor in the moral permissibility of killing it. In other words, does what the fetus is matter at all in the moral permissibility of killing it?

and can we also agree to define abortion in this thread as the deliberate ending of a human pregnancy by artificial means that results in the death the fetus.

Fetus for sake of brevity in this thread meaning the unique human starting at conception until birth. I am aware there are multiple names for this entity based on different stages of its development, but for brevity I would propose fetus works for all for the sake of this argument

can we start with the biology, and agree on some things as facts first.

I propose as a matter of fact that every human on this planet can trace their existence as a unique organism in time and space from this moment directly back to the moment of their unique conception

I propose that after the completion of conception a 100% human, 100% alive 100% geneticly unique organism exists, and from that moment on, will go through the stages of development that every other human on the planet has gone through and can only be human.

In short can we all agree, before we go any further that human life, all human life begins after the completion of conception.

don’t think I make such an error. I understand the basis of my beliefs. And no issue with those with the courage to believe otherwise. Just pity the bystanders standing on the outside throwing rocks at those who actually roll up their sleeves, pick a side and enter the fray.

if you leave a blood cell alone it becomes a blood cell, if you leave a fetus alone it becomes well us.

nice pun. Too late it died awhile back.

That's an extraordinary suggestion. "the use of her body", as if a woman must be passive during sex. How boring! How misogynistic. — Banno

Baby’s use of her body. If you would actually take a second to read and understand what we are talking about this would go faster

And we are back at the beginning again- have to run and this Twitter fight is a waste of time

in a moment a big steak and hopefully a bigger red wine. Dinner with friends- enjoy your night

I and biology believe we are all fully human, fully unique and fully alive human beings after the process of conception is complete
— Rank Amateur

Self-serving, disingenuous twaddle. But if you like, we can move on to persons, and leave this crap behind. — Banno

And pure fact


and fact. And I con

↪Rank Amateur OK. Thanks.

Then I will say that being a person involves sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, and appetite and rationality. A woman is capable of all of these. A cyst, of none. — Banno

And neither does a 3 month old - you ok with infanticide? I said if willing infanticide there is one logical personhood argument- and you danced around it, but close enough- it involves self awareness and the ability to value ones life.

Further, a blastocyst can only achieve personhood by inflicting its demands on a woman. — Banno

Dr. Thomsons argument that I posted earlier is this point. The counter argument is implied consent to use of the mother's body, I outlined the argument earlier- scroll up

what we are half heartedly discussing is a concept of personhood, when is still ok to kill this human being and why then.

And to bury the lead because I have to leave, any answer you give will be arbitrary and variable unless you are willing to allow infanticide. Because they all are.

sorry too fast, as I have said somewhere above, I and biology believe we are all fully human, fully unique and fully alive human beings after the process of conception is complete

of course not.

ok we agreed you were a cyst and now you are a human being. Explain the metamorphosis to me, So I can know exactly when it changes from being able to kill banno the cyst, and not being able to kill banno the human.

We can take out the word "Christian" and put in the words, Hindu, Buddist, Jew, Muslim, Taoist. Are you as willing to honor these people as you want us to honor Christians, or does the term bigot apply only when speaking of non-believers and Christians? — Athena

Try taking out the word Christian in your sentence and insert black people and see how it reads

s. However, a problem comes up when they are arguing with an atheist who may have a math and science foundation of knowledge because their foundation of knowledge is so different. — Athena

You don't really believe this do you, it's a joke right.

You know there are Christians who avoid math and science because they don't want to put the effort into learning math and science, so your logic that what I said is false has to be an emotional response not your reasoned response. In general, people avoid learning math and science, even professors. This becomes a problem when people who have at least some understanding of math and science are arguing with those who do not. Their argument cannot be based in logical because they are not working with the same foundation of knowledge. — Athena

Wow - sometimes all you can say is wow.

for the noseeum argument against the existence of God.

so at what point exactly do we stop being cysts and why then?

so what you are saying is at one time you were nothing but a cyst

The ones doing true science, the ones who are actually constantly in search of real answers are the ones never happy with the answers they get, but also, they do not take things with questionable logic as answers to anything. Just because scientists don't know something, doesn't mean they accept wild fantasies before finding the true answers. — Christoffer

Agree - I am not asking for any scientific acceptance of God at all if that is what the last sentence is saying.

It's also wrong to say that science is wrong all the time and build on correction. Answers in science that are proven theories are proven theories and they build new theories on top of them. This is why the unification theory is so hard since you can't erase the proven theories of either side, you need to find a theory that combines them all. — Christoffer

Granted, and maybe I liked the metaphor too much, but be careful what you accept as proven theories. As an example nothing can move faster than the speed of light, well maybe there is ?

This requires there to be proof in the first place. Questionable logic that is based on assumptions and fallacies does not count and all arguments so far, for any supernatural beings, have failed to reach that level of deduction. — Christoffer

The rock thing was pure metaphor.

Fundamental laws of logic have no rule over faith-based cognitions, the prime example being transferring the being of some supernatural necessity from phenomenal to ideal.
— Mww

Yeah, you could've stopped at, "Fundamental laws of logic have no rule over faith-based cognitions". No example necessary. I completely get it. Faith has no restrictions and can permit absurdity. It's the worst possible way to approach the stuff of philosophy. It is anathema to it. — S

I agree almost completely with this. Faith based beliefs are not philosophy and I have never, or at least never intentionally portrayed them as such.

I like Bertrand Russell's quote:


All definite knowledge - so I should contend - belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack by both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy.

scientific fact says no such thing. Scientific fact says they do not know. What is the consensus scientific view, is the universe is finite and had a beginning. That may change, that is the very nature of science. It is a long and wonderful history of continually being wrong, but with an amazing honesty, to correct itself and move on.

Every generation has stood on its top rung of scientific knowledge, amazed at their own brilliance, and looking down at the errors of those on the lower rungs, without acknowledging all of them felt exactly the same way in their time about the quality of their knowledge. And in general the folks who feel this the least, are the actual ones doing the science


So S what you are left with is an absence of belief,

Science says I don't know,
And jerks like me keep offering up "rocks" with God written on it, and you pick it up, look at it
Turn it around and then throw it away, the proof isn't good enough, bring me another rock, and I'll let you know if that one is any better

You sit in a metaphorical limbo, waiting for science to know, and have no determined position on anything until then.

make a serious argument and I will respond, have no time for these twitter type one liners

does your arrogance have any bounds. Don’t answer, Rhetorical

You had no idea the argument existed 2 days ago. The argument has existed for near 30 years and has been challenged on a few issues in that time but never has it been dismissed for form.

I have read you posts, dribble that they are. Just one more chest beater with the single goal of trying to impress himself, with himself.

We are done.

And so does every flap of a butterfly's wings. If you grasp this then Marquis goes out the window. If you do not grasp it.. — tim wood

if you wish to discount the argument on the " flap of butterfly wing defense" it would be a must simpler process to try and identify what state of affairs the flap of butterfly wings objection does not apply to.

I discard the objection as once again flippant and thoughtless.

His argument, then, is of the form, if a, b, c ,are true, and we assume them to be true, then x, y, z follow. This is not a mature argument, rather it is an exercise - and on the presumption that the author knows these things as well or better than you or I (Indiana is a no-joke philosophy and English school), you should wonder just what his point was. In short, I disqualify his argument for lack of substance. — tim wood

would be happy to address if you wish to make an argument why you believe his conclusions do not follow - Only if you wish. I have no concern one way or the other if you agree or disagree - my only point in sharing was, many who hold a position on the issue may have been unaware of the work, which by many is held as important. I also shared what I consider the best pro choice argument I know. And I leave both for those interested to read and make up their minds.

This issue deserves thought and reason. It is lacking in most discussions on this topic.

thank you once again for chiding me a second time for grabbing a poor link at first. I would have thought my first apology would have sufficed - seems i was in error on that belief.

You may now return to Mt Olympus while we await you further pronouncements

for those who like video evidence - a good debate with Peter Singer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qfiq18DMYk

just fyi

Don Marquis (born 1935) is an American philosopher whose main academic interests are in ethics and medical ethics. Marquis is currently Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas.[1]

Marquis earned an A.B. in Anatomy and Physiology from Indiana University in 1957. After receiving an M.A. in History from the University of Pittsburgh in 1962, Marquis returned to Indiana University to study philosophy. He received an M.A. in History and Philosophy of Science from Indiana in 1964 and a Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1970. He has taught at the University of Kansas since 1967. During the 2007/08 academic year, Marquis held the Laurance S. Rockefeller Visiting Professorship for Distinguished Teaching at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University.[2]

Marquis is best known for his paper "Why Abortion Is Immoral", which appeared in The Journal of Philosophy in April, 1989. This paper has been reprinted over 80 times,[3] and is widely cited in the philosophical debate over abortion.[4] The main argument in the paper is sometimes known as the "deprivation argument", since a central premise is that abortion deprives an embryo or fetus of a "future like ours".[5]

i make to fact claim about God at all - other than there is none. If you wish to make an arguement to me that in fact God is not I would be happy to argue against it.

My only point by saying not in conflict with fact is, no one can say Rank, your faith in God is misplaced, because it is a fact that God does not exist.

Not all reasoning is the same. People read holy books and take it on faith that the books are the best knowledge of life we can have. A few people willing to read the books, question the truth of what is said and look for evidence. That is a completely different level of thinking/reasoning. — Athena

You left out the group that read the holy books, looked at their message and their purpose. Thought deeply about them. And find meaning in them, and by faith chose against the other alternatives to believe them.

You point is just the same old tired and complete false belief that dumb people believe and smart people don't

Especially my Christian friends avoid math and science because they just don't want to make the effort of thinking. — Athena

This is just patently false, and insulting. Take out the word "christian" and put in any other group and see how it reads.

as is the rest of the paragraph - it is pure bigotry

Not really. The usual trimester arrangement - around Week 24 or 25 - will do for most purposes, using viability as the main criterion — Banno

on viability:

sadly a mother and her 3 month old baby are in a car accident - the mother is fine but the child is seriously hurt. The doctors talk to the mother and say, the child had serious injuries, but we feel the operations were successful, The child is on life support now - and will most likely be so for months - but it is expected if all goes well the child will eventually be able to be removed from life support and have a full recovery.

The mother, who is rather poor, and has 3 other children at home is concerned that she will be able to take care of the child, who was an unwanted pregnancy any asks the doctor is it permissible for her to ask the doctors to remove her from life support, knowing that she is not viable with out it.

if viability is a condition of person hood - than it should be allowed
if viability is not a condition of person hood - than it should not be allowed

Again, not me; I just don’t care. But if one is debating the objective existence of a thing, he must be doing so from the domain of a scientific space-time Universe; there isn’t anyplace else to find an objective existence, as far as we’re concerned. — Mww

Agree - why I have never made the the claim that God is. I have only made the claim - I, as a matter of faith, believe God is. And this belief is not in conflict with fact or reason.

Here is my honest cut on where the best philosophic arguments are on the morality of abortion.

these are all in a nutshell - all can be more fully developed for serious discussion

the only logical personhood arguments that are left involve the ability to know and value ones life. This is a good argument and it is logical. The issue with the argument is it allows infanticide - and no one likes infanticide - so it involves drawing an arbitrary line at birth where it the argument either works or does not - which then reduces the concept of personhood to merely born or unborn. And also allows abortion to 1 sec before birth

Dr. Thompsons argument that while accepting for the debate the fetus is a person with rights, so is the mother a person with rights, and her argument is this is a case of competing rights. The pro life argument back is there is implied consent to the use of her body when having sex. This objection would allow abortion in the case of life of the mother, or rape as morally permissible.

Dr. Maquiis argument that the fetus has a future of value much like ours, and one can define murder as the unjustly taking on ones future of value. And therefore abortion in most, but not all cases is immoral. The major objection to Dr. Marquis argument rest on extending the future of value argument back to the unfertilized ovum and sperm.

I kind of pay attention to this issue - and that is where i thing the best philosophy is. I have attached both pro choice and pro life argument in the thread already - for those who may be interested.

a cyst is not a fetus, or an embryo, it is a cyst

a fetus is a human being in a specific state of development, an embryo is a human being in a certain state of development, Banno is a human being in a certain state of development.

as an aside - one of the most interesting things in these debates is how quick those on the pro choice side are to abandon science -