Running through one side of the abortion debate is the notion that women are second-class beings, yet "are responsible," and that men decide their fates, even to the "respect" they're entitled to. It reeks of a deep misogyny, in particular a paternalistic, authoritarian, aggressive and passive-aggressive, and possessive attitude towards all women. — tim wood
it appears to be on full display. Perhaps I should just have asked you what you mean by "should." — tim wood
And you mock my questioning - fair enough. But you answer not at all. Maybe you're just playing at devil's advocate... — tim wood
I for clarity. What are you here for? "Irresponsible women" is your line. "Same level of respect," and so forth. My questions are substantive. If you think they're frankly stupid, then prove it by answering them. — tim wood
Let's try this. Do you endorse Roe without reservation or can you improve on it? Or if you do not accept Roe at all, why not - what's its flaw, keeping in mind it's law and not either of maths or philosophy - and with what would you replace it? No need for more than a few sentences to get us started. — tim wood
Nor I the English act. — tim wood
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person is not immoral under this principle relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family.
Assuming I'm an accurate reporter, anything here stand out as a problem? — tim wood
Deep breath indeed! From the first citation on your list: "Marquis makes the points that:..." Alas, he never did, he merely assumed them, and he clearly says that he was assuming them. (I had to resist putting that last in all caps. Do I need to?) — tim wood
Sure, responsibility is only an issue if there is value in the first place. But I find it almost incomprehensible to see either no value or such little value in the foetus to warrant little-to-no responsibility when it comes to terminating it, which means killing it, ending its life. It's human, it's alive, it has the potential of becoming a baby, infant, child, teenager, and adult. In fact, on that point, it's common to refer to a foetus as a baby, or by a gender specific pronoun, or by its given name, or by an endearing term. The terms being used in this discussion are technical and impersonal. Each and every one of us was a foetus at one point. It resembles us and shares features with us, such as eyes, arms, legs, and a beating heart. — S
People can judge value differently, but I find some of those judgements repulsive and abhorrent, such as judging it to be acceptable to drown kittens in a river or at an even more extreme end, exterminating Jews. There's a scale, and for me at least, irresponsible abortion is on there somewhere. — S
We can call it a child, if you want. I am not squeamish about the terms. But I think the reason to use technical terms in a discussion such as this one is to avoid the connotations that come with the more common terms, which can distort an argument. — Echarmion
But the feelings you have when confronted with a certain judgement only tell us about you, not about the judgement. You may well not drown the kittens, or kill the child, when it is your decision to make. But when it's someone else's decision to make, you presumably want to also tell them "you should not drown those kittens, you should not kill that child". If you then tell them "because it would cause me negative feeling" or "Because I would not do it", whether or not they listen will depend entirely on whether they value you as a person. Which is to say they're going to make a decision about you, not about kittens or children. — Echarmion
Since we all live in a society, and usually have some say about where that society is headed, we need to differentiate between what we would like to do and what we would like other people to do. "I would do X, so everyone should do X" is the attitude of either a god or a petty tyrant. — Echarmion
All right, we seem on a good track. We weigh this in the scale of ethics - which does not preclude law. But we stay on the ethical side. In the OP I identified ethics with morality, as being near synonyms, granted? — tim wood
I assume "guilty of immorality" is just legal jargon. I doubt if England has any laws against immorality, they being sensible enough to refine any such law to particulars of concrete behaviour. — tim wood
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person is not immoral under this principle relating to abortion when...
(1) Two doctors: if two doctors is standard practice for a wide variety of procedures, then I discern nothing discriminatory in the practice. But if just for abortion, then why? I am not asking if there is a why but just what that why is, and why it is - on what it is based. If the latter is the case, and you have no problem with it, then that seems a problem to me. — tim wood
(a) The logic of the "and" would appear to condemn even to death a mother whose pregnancy has exceeded twenty-four weeks. — tim wood
Under twenty-four weeks: this really makes no sense. — tim wood
Human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
It is in recognition of this dignity that a person had moral standing.
A cluster of cells, not having any of the characteristics of human dignity, has no moral standing.
As that cluster of cells develops, it grows in its ability to express sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. It grows in its entitlement to be treated with dignity.
The woman involved in a pregnancy is fully entitled to be treated with dignity.
Pregnancies that threaten the dignity of the pregnant woman may be terminated up until such time as the dignity of the developing human becomes significant. That is, when the developing human shows significant sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.
Thereafter pregnancies may be terminated if on balance the continuation of the pregnancy will result in a reduction human dignity.
Generally, this will be around the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy. — Banno
The FOV argument has ben shown to be in error. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/250662) — Banno
At the time I told you there is nothing at all in the FOV argument that makes any claim of personhood, it was the whole point of the argument. — Rank Amateur
Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral, and an important part of what makes it immoral is it deprives them of their future. — Rank Amateur
At the time I told you there is nothing at all in the FOV argument that makes any claim of personhood, it was the whole point of the argument. — Rank Amateur
ALL P1 SAYS IS IT IS IMMORAL TO KILL PEOPLE LIKE US, BORN HUMAN BEINGS. Why is that so hard for you to understand? — Rank Amateur
You use "people like us" to hide personhood. It's the killing of a person that is wrong, not the killing of a human. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.