A person gets to decide his or her own morality. Some do a reasonable, rational job of it, some don't. Whatever your feelings about abortion, they're just that, nor more nor less. And they're private to you. But you've tried to argue them. That's a process that makes both demands and judgments. So far, you've remained at the level of rant, however much you have worked at it.

The problem is what you take for granted that is, broadly speaking, just the things in question. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. Why don't you try to take that on, or any part of it? Or make your own argument. I infer you would like to persuade people that abortion is immoral. Here's your start, "Abortion is immoral, here's why." And then lay out your why. You will find, I think, that unless you simply assume that it is, you will have a very tough time making your case. Maybe the exercise will be instructive.

And a good argument is like the construction of a good house. It's sound everywhere, not just in the part you can see. Because if it's unsound anywhere, it will fall and come crashing down.

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

It seems to me that you either maintain that life matters from the moment of conception, or it matters from some other, entirely arbitrary, point in a human being’s development. That arbitrariness indicates that the pro-abortion view is part of the usual selfism that appears to govern the beliefs and actions of most people. Those who favour it do so because they have taken, or can see themselves taking, advantage of such a freedom. Those possessed of stronger self-awareness and moral imagination are more inclined to oppose it.

And it’s probably worth adding that Christopher Hitchens opposed abortion, so clearly the view isn’t always religiously motivated.

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

I have made (robbed) my arguments both for the the morality of abortion based on the nature of the fetus, and the use of the mothers body, and I have also addressed the legality of abortion. If a complete argument with premises and conclusions. Open to be objected to as un-true or unreasonable. If this is a rant - we could use more ranting on TPF.

Every objection you have made to these arguments were either addressed in the argument itself that you missed, or it was an indirect statement about the nature of the argument that omitted in any specific way what premise was un-true or the conclusion was unreasonable.

From my perspective I am disappointed in the amount of completely unsupported opinion I have received in rebuttal, considering your initial plea that we do philosophy on this thread.

If there has actually been a direct response to any argument I have made - i have missed it. Nor have I seen any structured argument to refute it.

We can all make judgement on what is moral or immoral - that is the basic definition of morality - the goodness or badness of an act as judged by others. That however does not make morality individual or completely relative.

My take or Roe v Wade is, the case was more about states rights than it was about abortion. My views on it are almost completely in line with Justice Scalia's, his many comments on it that are easy to find. Basically it was an overreach by the court, for an issue the constitution says should be a states right to decide - i am more swayed by originalism interpretations of the constitution. And agree on this as well. Now it is important to note that even it Roe v Wade was overturned, which will not happen by the way, it would not make abortion illegal in the US - it would just return it to the states to decide. In such an instance it is almost a certainty that many states will vote to allow abortion. And as a citizen in a democracy I would have no objection to that. That IMO is the process working.

What will happen now, with a more originalnist court, states will continue to push the abortion issue to limit funding or in any number of ways make it more difficult in their states. They will hope for someone with standing to challenge them, in order to get the issue of abortion being a state right or as it stands now and interpretation of the privacy clause of the 14th amendment.

So my view on Roe v Wade, is it was an overreach by the court on the interpretation of the privacy clause of the 14th amendment and as such was a case of legislation from the bench. The issue of abortion should be an issue determined by the states, or if one feels that is specifically should not be, like slavery, than like slavery, they should amend the constitution.

Better said than I can:

Scalia's partial concurrence in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992:

"The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. ...

"Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since. And by keeping us in the abortion umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any pax Roeana, that the Court's new majority decrees."

Scalia's concurrence in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 1989:

"We can now look forward to at least another Term with carts full of mail from the public, and streets full of demonstrators, urging us — their unelected and life-tenured judges who have been awarded those extraordinary, undemocratic characteristics precisely in order that we might follow the law despite the popular will — to follow the popular will. ...

"It thus appears that the mansion of constitutionalized abortion law, constructed overnight in Roe v. Wade, must be disassembled doorjamb by doorjamb, and never entirely brought down, no matter how wrong it may be."

I don't see why it is acceptable to create a life and not acceptable to end a life.

Why does someone have the right to create someone without that persons consent and expose them to suffering?

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.

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 andrew there is the concept of "ideal desire" . It goes something like this. I am in an accident, and require life support. I am unconscious and unresponsive. They ask me if I desire life support - I say nothing, I am unable to express my desire because I am handicapped by the injury. The concept of ideal desire is what would i want if the handicap was removed. If I were able to express my desire, i would desire the life support to save my life.

If you apply this concept to the fetus, who is handicapped by their stage of development, and ask if the fetus was not so handicapped would it desire to live. The answer would be yes.

Now the counter back is, one must have knowledge of what one might desire before the handicap in order to desire it at all. The fetus having no knowledge of life or death yet does not, so ideal desire does not apply

this argument is countered by, Lack of knowledge is just another handicap. If you take the first example, of me needing life support, and instead of me it is a aboriginal person who has know knowledge of such a thing as life support, Ideal desire would still apply if he could, he would desire it.

That was brilliant. :clap:

It's so much easier to critique if you start by misinterpreting. — Banno

It's so much easier to repeat a sound bite than to explain why you think that something is a misinterpretation. If you're suggesting that it's a false analogy, then I would be interested if you were to spell out why you think so. Granted, it's a person in one case but not in the other. It doesn't have to be. Granted, you don't judge them to have anything even approaching the same level of moral worth. You don't have to. And you should know as well as I do that I don't believe in fiction like souls and rarely set out to defend religion, so it would be interesting, to say the least, if you were to go down that route with me.

People claim to be appalled by abortion but then they tolerate this: — Andrew4Handel

Assuming they do tolerate child neglect and do nothing to alleviate it, or, better yet, assume they actually advocate child abuse and also are opposed to abortion, that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is justified. The best you've shown is that there are some fucked up hypocrites in the world.

It seems to me that you either maintain that life matters from the moment of conception, or it matters from some other, entirely arbitrary, point in a human being’s development. That arbitrariness indicates that the pro-abortion view is part of the usual selfism that appears to govern the beliefs and actions of most people. Those who favour it do so because they have taken, or can see themselves taking, advantage of such a freedom. Those possessed of stronger self-awareness and moral imagination are more inclined to oppose it. — AJJ

Yes, those who oppose choice have a tendency to reject any nuance or subtlety, much preferring the reassurance of strong lines; it deadens the fear that motivates much of conservative thinking. That this corresponds with the general attitudes of misogynist puritanical theology is a bonus, of course.

Not at all self-serving.

Granted, it's a person in one case but not in the other. — S

Just so. What more is there?

Obviously there's the other thing, whatever you choose to call it.

Yes, those who oppose choice have a tendency to reject any nuance or subtlety — Banno

The same can be said of the pro-choice who accuse the pro-life of dictating what women can do with their bodies. Do we not all admonish pregnant women who smoke, drink alcohol, or eat rare steak?

And in admonishing pregnant women who smoke, drink alcohol, or eat rare steak, are we not precisely considering the future potential of the foetus? Is it reasonable to prevent future suffering but not reasonable to prevent future non-existence? We certainly seem to care enough about future non-existence that we’d fight to prevent extinction.

Mmm, I love the taste of irony, don't you? Unimaginatively fixating on present status of personhood, as if that were the be-all and end-all.

I entirely agree. If one wishes for a healthy child, one ought take such considerations. If. A person is an end in themselves; a foetus a means to an end.

Thanks for raising that point.

It seems to me that you either maintain that life matters from the moment of conception, or it matters from some other, entirely arbitrary, point in a human being’s development — AJJ

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.

If it is so clear, then you must explain why killing a live sperm or live egg is not murder, or why killing any live cell on a human body is not murder.

If. A person is an end in themselves; a foetus a means to an end. — Banno

You assume your conclusion in you argument, namely that a fetus is not a person. That seems to be the issue in dispute. If one takes a fetus to be a person, it cannot be an means to an end.

I entirely agree. If one wishes for a healthy child, one ought take such considerations. If. A person is an end in themselves; a foetus a means to an end.

Thanks for raising that point. — Banno

Yet that tends not to by why we condemn pregnant women who smoke. It’s nothing like the person who decides to kick a football against a window where we’re assuming that they’ll be set back if it breaks. We condemn pregnant women who smoke because we care about how it will affect the growth of the foetus for the sake of the future child, not for the sake of the thoughtless mother.

“A disabled child will be such a burden. Do you really want that responsibility?” That’s a pretty callous perspective. Is that really all it is for you?

A sperm, an egg or a random cell are not human beings. Left to themselves they do not become anything more than what they are.

We condemn pregnant women who smoke because we care about how it will affect the growth of the foetus for the sake of the future child, not the sake of the thoughtless mother. — Michael

The law is consistent with only people having rights. The fetus could not sue for its injuries, only the injured child could. What we're concerned about when expectant mothers drink and smoke is not deformed fetuses, but deformed children. Partying moms to be yield people like you.

Since I'm a lawyer, and law is all I like to talk about, I'd also point out that wrongful life suits are generally not recognized, and when they are, there are limitations (except apparently by the Dutch). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_life That is, you can generally not sue because you were born and argue they ought to have aborted you knowing how bad off you'd be. That is such a lovely concept, though, son's advocate suing mom for not aborting him when she had the chance.

In my view, whether or not it's a person is irrelevant. Persons aren't the only thing of value. Other things are of value in relation to people. What we're discussing is one of them in the eyes of many, and understandably so.

You assume your conclusion in you argument, namely that a fetus is not a person. That seems to be the issue in dispute. If one takes a fetus to be a human, it cannot be an means to an end. — Hanover

True. It's not my conclusion, but my starting point. 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.

The only reason I'm aware of that a blastocyst might be endowed with personhood is if one supposes that it has a soul, or some other metaphysical characteristic. But since this is empirically untestable, it is irrelevant. Hence the convoluted arguments on the part of those who would rate the foetus over the woman.

A sperm, an egg or a random cell are not human beings. Left to themselves they do not become anything more than what they are. — AJJ

Each cell grows and each organ grows, so they do become more than what they are.

Regardless, you're adding arbitrary rules here. Previously you claimed that a embryo was entitled to protection under the law because it was human life, but now I'm to learn it must be human life that is capable of becoming something else. As I've pointed out, my liver satisfies your definition, so you'll need to continue working out the nuances of your definition.

Left to themselves they do not become anything more than what they are. — AJJ

And left to itself a foetus becomes dead. The role of a woman in a pregnancy is not passive.

Persons aren't the only thing of value. — S

Are you arguing things other than humans have inherent value, and are you suggesting that value exists without humans?

What we're concerned about when expectant mothers drink and smoke is not deformed fetuses, but deformed children. — Hanover

So we're concerned about the potential future of the foetus (to be a deformed child). Yet a lot of those who are pro-life say that it isn't reasonable to consider the potential future of the foetus (to be a child) to determine that abortion is wrong. I'm highlighting the apparent inconsistency between these two positions.

And so you introduce permission to treat a person as a means to an end, not as an end in themselves.

And hence, you position is immoral.

A liver is not a human being. Neither, as far as I’m aware, is it made of a single cell. A human being is one of us, from the point at which we begin to develop, which is the moment of conception, right?

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

Tim - after giving lot of time for others to do this, in the spirit of the honest exchange of ideas I will help you all with the best argument I know against the FVOL argument -

In his book the A Defense of Abortion Danial Boonin acknowledges that the FVOL argument has the most potential to be used to develop a successful argument for the claim that the fetus has a right to life at conception (somehow in this maybe the best total work on the subject of abortion he missed both your logic and hypothetical objection - you should drop him a line and point it out to him)

He argues that any Pro-Choicer who hopes to defeat Marquis’ argument must construct an
argument that does all three of the following:

1) It identifies an alternative property that accounts for the wrongness of killing
infants, suicidal teenagers, temporarily comatose adults, and paradigm persons.

2) It shows that the alternative property is preferable to Marquis’ property, especially
in terms of offering an account that best explains the wrongness of killing.

3) It shows that the fetus does not possess this alternative property (or that it doesn’t
possess the property during the period of gestation in which the majority of
abortions take place)

He does this by delineating a line in the pregnancy at about the 25 week point where the fetus
begins to have organized cortical brain activity. And his argument is establishing a different criteria for the ideal desire argument.

and it goes something like this - a being must have at least some actual desires to be attributed any
ideal desires.

to me this is just a subtle change in the ideal desire argument that one must have a knowledge of the desire first.

I don't find this objection sufficient - others might.

And certainly others can do a better job of explaining it, my honesty only goes so far - but there is where to look if you want the best argument against FVOL.

Last aside - I don't even think Boonin thought it was all that good an argument. And spends way more time and think comes closest supporting Judith Thomsons argument on the use of the woman's body.

True. It's not my conclusion, but my starting point. — Banno

Then your conclusion is your starting point. If you start with the idea that only people have rights and that fetuses aren't people, then what's there to debate? I'd think the issue for debate would be whether your definition of "people" is sustainable, especially in light of the fact that many of those we consider "people" do not have the attributes you list. For example, an infant, a coma patient, a severely brain injured person, a drunk person, an asleep person, and many others would not be rational or autonomous. I could accuse you of ensouling people as well, arguing that the reason such people are afforded rights is that they have that magical sprinkling of humanity in them, call it a soul or what you will.