The deeper roots of opposition to abortion are that the fetus belongs to either a god or the father. — Bitter Crank

May I insert the word "social" between deeper and roots? Thus, "The deeper social roots of opposition to abortion...". In your main point, I have no disagreement at all. But I should like to think that deeper than social roots is a disquieted, uncanny, disturbed - funereal- feeling at the failure of a natural process - the natural process - by which all that is beautiful in us comes into being. The literature seems consistent that mothers nearly always grieve termination of their pregnancy.

We can not suppose that abortion of a 5 month or less fetus is a horrible experience for the fetus. It is not, because at 20 weeks, fetuses have neither consciousness to experience horrible experiences nor a sufficiently developed CNS to feel pain. — Bitter Crank

This is not far from the reasoning in Roe v. Wade. Roe adds considerations of the well-being of the mother: early terminations less dangerous than the pregnancy itself, late term, significantly more dangerous than just giving birth.

To be sure, though, Blackmun and the rest of the court gave no consideration to the mother as an interested person.

The literature seems consistent that mothers nearly always grieve termination of their pregnancy. — tim wood

Even though I am in favor of abortion being legal and readily accessible, I wouldn't for a moment suggest that aborting a fetus is a matter of indifference to the parents, particularly to the woman who experiences it first hand. A very early miscarriage can send parents into grieving, depending on the emotional investment in the pregnancy. For most people, conceiving, delivering, and parenting children is the central experience.

On the other hand, ending a pregnancy one didn't wish for, and preventing the child that was not planned on and perhaps definitely not wanted is also a great relief. Bearing the unwanted child is no small burden, and lasts a long time.

Then I'd not have an opinion on abortion. — Terrapin Station

But would you been happy to have been aborted?

Is it relevant to the abortion argument? — TheMadFool

It is relevant because it s a realistic often occurring result of creating a child.

Creating more children is just going to create more children in that situation and not alleviate the situation.

If child welfare was so high on the anti-abortionist agenda then why are so many children in dire circumstances? Children can only suffer because they are created.

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

The Don Marquis argument as currently presented is nothing more than a hypothetical argument that assumes what is in question and needs to be proved - or at least persuasively argued. As such it has nothing to offer here. It can be rehabilitated by making it a substantive instead of a hypothetical argument, but that has yet to be done.

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 — Rank Amateur

Seems reasonable; every thing is unique, in itself and its antecedents/ancestors. But what follows?

I propose that after the completion of conception a 100% human, 100% alive 100% genetically 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

Ontogeny recapitulates ontogeny, and a good thing, too. But whence with this?

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

No, because human life comes from human life. You have confused "human life" with the an individual's unique characteristics.

Very funny. ;-)

If doing so significantly lowered the crime rate in about 15 years?
Is this a trick question? :grimace: — praxis

I should have noted your screen name! Higher or lower crime rates can be a useful pieces of data, but it requires some account as to why they're higher or lower. Wouldn't you say?

A pregnant woman wants to have an abortion
— tim wood

Only if we could replace the wants with needs. — TheMadFool

Absolutely not, in a free society. It's enough she want one. Whether she needs one or not may be someone's business: hers, her family's, the father's, her doctor's, but definitely not yours. Suppose it were yours. What account could you give for any attitude you might have about it, much less any decision about it?

Is it your extrinsic or intrinsic value that's determinative, here. We should't miss you because of who you are? Or because of what you are?

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

I wouldn't for a moment suggest that aborting a fetus is a matter of indifference to the parents, — Bitter Crank

Amen. Nor should be, generally, to the rest of us. The world is today filled with potentiality that is absurdly easy to trigger. A gun can unleash consequences that defy proportion with the force it takes to fire it - such a trigger pull was the proximate cause of World War I! A car, propelled by a slight pressure on the accelerator. Sex is only a little different. One healthy man by himself (and with a sufficient supply of women) could populate a planet - several planets! My point is that there is a kind of responsibility that goes with possessing means to effectuate the potential, and usually penalties for abusing it. But what should it be for unwise sex? Or should there be one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

I am in complete agreement with what you have to say here.

If there are no intervening contrary events, birth proceeds naturally from conception. — ernestm

Notice how this post utterly ignores the impact that pregnancy has on the involved woman, treating her as a passive receptacle.

That is not an acceptable moral stance.

if we determine there is a morally justified reason to kill the fetus due to its nature we are done. — Rank Amateur

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?

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. — Banno

You would argue that there is no dignity that attaches to humans (or anything, really) because of what it is? That is, we owe no debt or have no obligation of respect or courtesy until we determine of the thing in question whether it meets our criteria for being entitled to respect? I doubt you mean that!

Quoting myself again, since you saw fit to split the thread...

Let's do some deconstruction.

Removing a cyst is not killing. A cyst is not a living thing, not a plant, animal or mushroom, and hence cannot be killed.

But more obvious is who is not included in the argument. The account hardly mentions the pregnant woman, and then only to say we will talk about her later. That alone ought give us pause, and wonder as to the attitude towards women that stands behind this argument.

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

You would argue that there is no dignity that attaches to humans (or anything, really) because of what it is? — tim wood

No, I would not argue that.

Human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.

That's what it is.

It may also be a bunch of human cells; but that is insufficient to dignify it. So if you think dignity derives from the material constituents of an individual, I would disagree.

A cyst is not a living thing

Is there anything in the womb that is not a living thing? is that where I lost my glasses?

In terms of preferred terms, it's my likely fond wish we could find simple words that would do for all. That would require, though, we all look at exactly the same thing at the same time in the same way.

The woman is a problem in itself. Inasmuch as the question is framed in terms of abortion - at least informally - the woman is incidental. As a matter of human rights in particular women's rights, then the fetus is incidental. Roe v. Wade argues that the fetus has plenty of rights pending, pending live birth. Hmm. By this rule of requiring live birth to perfect those, then what actual right does a fetus have? It would appear none. I have not seen this argument anywhere; I wonder if it's sound - it seems sound!

No, I would not argue that.

Human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.

That's what it is.

It may also be a bunch of human cells; but that is insufficient to dignify it. So if you think dignity derives from the material constituents of an individual, I would disagree. — Banno

I don't think it right to say that human dignity inheres in anything. Rather, like any value, it's projected onto others by us. Some value the life of a foetus, others don't. On what grounds can one group say that the other group is wrong?

It may also be a bunch of human cells; but that is insufficient to dignify it. So if you think dignity derives from the material constituents of an individual, I would disagree. — Banno

Crossed understandings. I think existence entitles anyone/anything to a default level of dignity and respect. Call it a presumption of being properly entitled. And isn't dignity a matter of regard? You do not have dignity, you are not dignified, except as I grant or regard you as being dignified? Which, because it's a essentially a social function, operates in a general way, at least at first?

Dignity does seem to me a word that is not as simple to understand as it at first appears.

Is there anything in the womb that is not a living thing? — tim wood

So allow me to take care: the full sentence is:

A cyst is not a living thing, not a plant, animal or mushroom, and hence cannot be killed.

If you prefer, the cyst is not an organism.

But in simpler words, a cyst is not entitled to respect in the way a person is.

The woman is a problem in itself. Inasmuch as the question is framed in terms of abortion - at least informally - the woman is incidental. As a matter of human rights in particular women's rights, then the fetus is incidental. Roe v. Wade argues that the fetus has plenty of rights pending, pending live birth. Hmm. By this rule of requiring live birth to perfect those, then what actual right does a fetus have? It would appear none. I have not seen this argument anywhere; I wonder if it's sound - it seems sound! — tim wood

Two things here. I think it obvious that the woman has a place in considering ending the pregnancy. In this regard your Roe v. Wade might be lacking.

Secondly, and also in answer to your

Dignity does seem to me a word that is not as simple to understand as it at first appears. — tim wood

Nussbaum's position provides a closely argued, detailed and widely applicable analysis of dignity.

Some value the life of a foetus, others don't. On what grounds can one group say that the other group is wrong? — Michael

As with all moral decisions - indeed, as with all decisions - it's down to you.

So I am convinced that a blastocyst is not in the same ethical category as an autonomous, adult human.

And I will go further and say that I am convinced that those who insist in denying choice to that woman in deference to the cyst are acting immorally. That is, that what they are doing is wrong.

Now, you choose.

Some might enjoy this:

Abortion, Dignity and a Capabilities Approach

Secondly, and also in answer to your
Dignity does seem to me a word that is not as simple to understand as it at first appears.
— tim wood
Nussbaum's position provides a closely argued, detailed and widely applicable analysis of dignity. — Banno

Um, not so much. First, a simple dictionary definition: dignity: the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed.

From the paper cited:

"Although the idea of dignity is a vague idea that needs to be given content by placing it in a
network of related notions,.."

And so much for what Nussbaum says about what dignity is. That it "inheres" is not to the point. And she gives a quick comparison between a Kantian notion of dignity - or where it inheres, and her more modern and useful notion.

It would appear that for Nussbaum, the greater the dignity the more right, of a woman to abortion, or of a fetus to be brought to term. The argument turns to assessing dignity, and how to assess it.

Glad you took a look.

Firstly, what I have said about abortion is not reliant only on a capabilities approach. See my reply to Michael, above. It was introduced in the main to contrast the breadth of that approach with the narrow argument presented by @Rank Amateur. But it is an interest of mine, and this thread has led me back to considering it as a useful approach to ethics.

So I really don't intend to argue for the capabilities approach here in this thread. It's just a framework on which to hang a critique of anti-abortionist ideas.

Secondly, the article is a snippet of the literature on the capabilities approach. If you would like more, I suggest you go to Google rather than I. The reply will be much quicker.

Thirdly, my understanding of Nussbaum is that she clearly rejects the notion of degrees of dignity. Further, the purpose she sets herself is not to find out what is the case, but to fathom what we should do.

And finally, you might well suppose that the argument turns on dignity; but that's just one way of expressing the belief in supporting an adult woman over a cyst. That is the central sentiment here.

Ah. Perhaps this is what is going one: I am being read as advocating that a foetus is less capable than a human, and hence less entitled to be treated with dignity. As an argument according to degree.

No.

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.

The point is to bring to the fore the actual capabilities of the woman involved in the pregnancy, to place these centrally in the discussion of what we ought do, and to contrast them with the lack of capability of the foetus, which renders it of only minor moral consideration.

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

It appears we are out of luck. This thread does not seem to be the definitive discussion of abortion.

And I will go further and say that I am convinced that those who insist in denying choice to that woman in deference to the cyst are acting immorally. That is, that what they are doing is wrong. — Banno

What about after 10 days when the blastocyst becomes an embryo, or after 10 weeks when the embryo becomes a foetus?

And if pro-life proponents genuinely believe that the blastocyst has the right to come to term, is it right to say that they are acting immorally rather than just, in your view, being mistaken about the facts? Is it immoral to incorrectly believe that something has rights it doesn't actually have?