Ok, so how is it necessarily immoral?

Why is it necessarily immoral? — DingoJones

Drop the "necessarily". It's immoral. It's immoral because it puts the "needs" of a cyst ahead of those of a human. As if a cyst had needs.

Isnt there at least a process or scenario where a discussion might take place about how far along the “baby” is and how developed it needs to be to have rights? — DingoJones

But see the OP. This is not such a discussion. Pretending a cyst has rights in order to defend one's invisible friends is immoral.

If there is a discussion, a debate of any kind, then how is it necessarily immoral? — DingoJones

The discussion - go for it. Opposing the rights of women - wrong.

Is this purely ground you must stand because it so soundly dispells the anti abortion position? — DingoJones

Was the post that got your attention a rhetorical device? Consider it a grumpy response to those who think God tells us how to behave.

The discussion - go for it. Opposing the rights of women - wrong. — Banno

That is not the discussion I was referencing, but rather it was the discussion about the difference between a baby and a cyst. If there is a discussion, then it isnt necassary. Of course, you would like me to drop “necessarily” but thats what I thought you were saying.
Ok, so why is it a cyst? When is it not a cyst any more and is now a baby? Ive always been fine with whatever medical professionals decide but you seem to have something else in mind.

...you seem to have something else in mind. — DingoJones

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

all human beings, you, me and every one else in the world began our life in time and space on this world at the completion of conception. At the completion of conception there is a 100% human, 100% alive, 100% unique fully human being. That is fact, and non disputable

Every line drawn between conception and birth that allows abortion based on size or capabilities is arbitrary and variable.

In most and best current philosophical arguments about the morality of abortion, if not agreed, the personhood of the fetus is stipulated, because it is an irrational and losing argument. And the pro choice folks center their argument on if the fetus has a right to the use of the woman's body.

At the completion of conception there is a 100% human, 100% alive, 100% unique fully human being. That is fact, and non disputable — Rank Amateur

Well... it obviously is disputed. Repeatedly and enthusiastically.

A cyst is not a human.

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

I see. Fair enough.

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 -

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.

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

Isnt there at least a process or scenario where a discussion might take place about how far along the “baby” is and how developed it needs to be to have rights? — DingoJones

Sure, everyday. Now who are the people capable of having such a discussion? Earlier in this thread someone adduced the term "FOV" - future of value - defined it, argued that a person could be deprived of it, that the deprivation was murder, therefore, abortion is murder and hence immoral. (Got from someone named Don Marquis, although this is suspect on its face; just look at the to citations.)

Any such discussion must be an honest discussion. Conservatives, pro-lifers, as a group seem incapable of having such. "Conservatives" not to be confused with the respectable and even admirable Republican conservative party of, say, Adlai Stevenson. Who is he, you ask? Point made.

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]

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

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

since a central premise is that abortion deprives an embryo or fetus of a "future like ours". — Rank Amateur

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....

As to who Marquis is, I do not doubt he is real - why should I? But there was cited earlier in this thread a paper under his name that was barely English, much less polished academic quality. And to be sure, the replacement citation clearly did have that polish. But the author really does not matter; the argument must stand on its merits. If you read the paper, the form of the argument seems good enough to me. What of its substance? Every significant premise is assumed to be true. He makes that explicitly clear. 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.

If you want to reinstate it, show me the substance.

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

would be happy to address if you wish to make an argument why you believe his conclusions do not follow - — Rank Amateur

It is hard to discuss texts with people who do not read them. Had you read my post, which apparently you are referencing, you would have noted that in my opinion the form of his argument was unexceptionable. It was his uncritical acceptance of premises that is the problem. That is, "if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses on the ground" is a perfectly good argument. The trouble with it is that frogs do not have wings and they do bump their asses on the ground.

You ask me to argue "why I believe his arguments do not follow." Whether his "arguments follow" is irrelevant.

I discard the" flap of butterfly wing defense" objection as once again flippant and thoughtless. — Rank Amateur

All right then, how about the choice of schools your parents sent you to. The house you lived in, your choices of friends, or the lack of choice. The world and local economies when you grew up. The wife you chose, or didn't choose. Your choices for higher education; your choices about studying while at school. Whether you said yes or no when offered drugs. And on and on and on. Everything makes a difference. Each divergence kills worlds in favor of one world, the world of that choice. Each divergence "murders" a FOV. But I suppose I'm being flippant and thoughtless.

This issue deserves thought and reason. — Rank Amateur

Agreed. Give it a try. Start with Marquis. Attempt to understand what his argument exactly is. For a start. Or not. Jump right into the abortion debate itself. I propose this as a starting point: A pregnant woman wants to have an abortion, what if any are grounds for controlling as a matter of law as to whether or when or under what circumstances she may proceed?

You ask me to argue "why I believe his arguments do not follow." Whether his "arguments follow" is irrelevant. — tim wood

I think we have a winner. :party:

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.

a cyst is not a fetus, or an embryo, it is a cyst — Rank Amateur

Are you here agreeing with me that a Blastocyst is not a person?

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

That's the Achilles heel. It's pretty hard to pretend a cyst is a human, let alone a person with rights. And if you admit that it isn't then your claim that the issue is about conflicting rights collapses. So you cannot reply.

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

"nothing but".

At one time each of us was a cyst.

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

Why do you think there is an exact point?

But first, can a cyst be a person?

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.

Just to be clear: do you agree with me that a blastocyst is not a human being?

of course not.

That's an ambiguous answer - of course you don't agree, or of course a cyst is not a person?

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