Thank you for your method of presentation. Read easy, there's less here than it appears.

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. — Rank Amateur

Let's step even farther back and try to build it up soundly and solidly. But let's note as well that for every well-grounded proposition, it is probably possible to create a very unusual hypothetical "situation" in which the proposition falls into question - but we have to begin somewhere.

If it is not wrong to live then it cannot be wrong to die. So much for death and dying.

It is not immoral to kill. Or, rather, in as much as most non-human living things on the planet are killed by people, if killing itself is immoral, then we have a bigger problem than working out abortion. Let's accept even if provisionally that killing qua killing is just killing, and the morality or immorality of it depends on circumstances. So much for killing.

But let's define killing absent good justification as being bad, wrong, and immoral, although we don't yet know what "bad," "wrong," and "immoral" are. But here's a problem: who decides what good justification is and whether it applies to the circumstance?

Let's decide right here that if judgment is required, it be based on civil reason - let's call it law for present purpose. Why? Because there is no accounting for what some individuals or groups will think; e.g., flat-earthers, Nazis, Thuggees. And we can concede there is bad law, but for this exercise, all law is eminently reasonable. And being reasonable, it can yield as necessary to reason. Reason shall be our legislature and its legislation rapid.

Now for "bad," "wrong," and "immoral." Until and unless we find we cannot, let's let "bad" and "wrong" follow "immoral." Morality is not so easy. And immoral is not the same as not-moral. Dictionary: adjective:concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Noun: a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

From this I draw out that things cannot be either moral or immoral. Let's restrict ourselves to actions taken by people, and further, as actions, to killing. We're concerned, then, with people killing people.

But our definition isn't much help. There is in it the word "acceptable." What can that mean? As a start, a moral principal, to be such, must be 1) needed and necessary, 2) accepted as binding by all and on all the members of the community, 3) not be self-contradicting, 4) not be contradicted by any other moral principal, 5) be about something that could either be or not be, and 6) be for the good of all.

Anything being merely true or merely a fact does not in itself make it a moral principal.

Definition: if it comports with 1-6, then it's moral. If not, then if it violates any of 1-6 it's immoral. If it neither comports with nor violates, then it's non-moral.

We agree that killing in itself is not immoral, and that it's ok to be dead. Why can we not kill indiscriminately? It seems to me it violates 1-4 and 6.

I think we can now take on your #1. " It identifies an alternative property that accounts for the wrongness of killing infants, suicidal teenagers, temporarily comatose adults, and paradigm persons."

We can draw a corollary from 1-6 above: that if the people as a whole constitute a genus, then any subgroup may be said to constitute a species. Within 1-6 we can easily see that actions against any species or sub-group would be immoral - unless of course they specifically conform with 1-6.

It appears to follow that it would be immoral to kill any of your listed groups or members thereof. (Arrived at without reference to anything outside of what was presented.)

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. — Rank Amateur

We have had no need to adduce any "alternative property." nor is there any evidence to support any notion of any "preference" for anything of Marquis's.

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) — Rank Amateur

Well, this introduces and implies without the least support that a fetus is a person, or in terms of the above, a member of the community. I here use Hitchen's razor: what is adduced without reason or support can be dismissed without reason or support. i dismiss the implied claims that the fetus is a member of the community, that a fetus is a person.

Recall from above our community is one of reason as civil law. and pay attention to the rules about contradiction. Now, if you want to argue that a fetus is a person or a member of the community, have at it. But do not simply assert it, because it will fail under the contradiction rules. if you think you can overthrow any of those rules, have at that too.

And it’s probably worth adding that Christopher Hitchens opposed abortion, — AJJ

Can you easily reproduce or copy his argument? And as to when life has value, what makes you suppose that it ever did not have value?

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. — Rank Amateur

And the Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery: a rank piece of sophistic re-writing of history. Read Lincoln's Cooper Union speech and research Southern newspaper editorials and articles. Anyway, Roe v. Wade is about abortion. Actually, that what it says. Scalia and originalism are twin horrors. Or, originalism is Grendel's mother to Scalia's Grendel. More on this see Justice David Souter at Harvard video on Youtube. (Erudite, sharp, educational, and entertaining.) Possibly you believe the 14th amendment is overreach, too, or have you read it?

Andrew4Handel
976
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. — Andrew4Handel

Why do you think that the action of reproduction is an exercise of any right? What does right have to do with it? I think, Handel, that your arguments are not philosophy but are instead pain. This is not the place for those arguments. And if it's your pain, perhaps not the place for you. This is not a therapy site nor does philosophy, even done badly as most of us do, yield therapy. This is just playground ball, and you can get hurt.

Wrong question it seems. How valuable is it? — S

A quibble. A one second old embryo has minimal worth, but a 10 year old child infinite worth. At what moment in time does this thing have sufficient worth to cause us to protect it fully? That moment is called personhood.

And the Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery: a rank piece of sophistic re-writing of history. — tim wood

This misunderstands @Rank Amateur's post. Roe v. Wade is in fact about the state's (meaning the government's) limits and rights to regulate abortion. The civil war, to the extent it was about state's rights, was about the authority of the federal government to dictate it's authority upon the states (meaning the individual states of the Confederacy). I think you're equivocating with the term "state" here.

A summary, but good enough:

"The majority determined that a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion involved the question of whether the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The justices answered this question by asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from “depriv[ing] any person of … liberty … without due process of law,” protected a fundamental right to privacy. Further, after considerable discussion of the law’s historical lack of recognition of rights of a fetus, the justices concluded “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” The right of a woman to choose to have an abortion fell within this fundamental right to privacy, and was protected by the Constitution."

Almost every Supreme Court case has something to do with state's rights, but that does not at all mean that each case is about state's rights. Try again?

Reject the CA, if you see something better. — Banno

I'll accept the CA, but reject your criteria you've offered. I'm fine with accepting the conclusion that we will never define the essential characteristics of a person, but I instead fall back on the idea that I know a conceptus is not a person but that a newborn is. The precise delineating line is unclear, so within the grey area, I give the benefit of doubt to personhood.

I don't shrink from ensoulment either, as I do believe the newborn is sacred, yet the embryo not. Religious talk causes discomfort I know, so substitute ensoulment with simple becoming.

Sure. The main point here is to show the corruption of the anti-choice position.

The equivocation issue arises here in how you're using "state's rights." As to abortion regulation, the Court was examining the Constitutional limit on government power generally, which in this case happened to deal with a specific state law. Roe v. Wade would apply equally even if the abortion regulation examined were a federal law and not a state law. Their use of the phrase "state's right" was synonymous with government's right.

The Civil War "state's right" issue was a 10th Amendment argument, arguing the federal government was improperly imposing its power on the individual states. The term states' rights here means the actual states, as opposed to the federal government.

What are we on, here? The Civil War was about slavery, and Roe v. Wade is about abortion. Is there anything you want to continue on?

But you're dancing around the question. What is a human being? Why is a sperm attached to an egg a person and a fingernail not? — Hanover

You’re being obtuse. You are a human being; you have been one from the moment you began to develop. You did not develop from a sperm cell, you did not develop from an egg cell, you have never been a liver cell, you have never been a fingernail. The combination of the former two was your conception and beginning; the latter two are simply a part of you.

Don’t really know what you’re struggling with. Human life begins from its conception, from what other point can you say it begins? If it is going to be valued, it should be so from then for the reason I gave.

Here’s a short clip of Hitchens on abortion: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Apt4iR6axnY

And I don’t suppose that, which is my whole point.

if the decision in row v wade, was about the legality of abortion, if repealed, it would then make abortion illegal. That is not the case. If repealed, the decision would go to the individual states. Most IMO would allow it, some would not.

The civil war does have many parallels. There was a large disagreement among Americans about what "a person was". One group was using an arbitrary criteria to enslave an entire group of people
Because it improved the quality of their life. Without their slaves their life would be much more difficult.

Most of these people lived in the southern states of the US. They said this slavery thing was a matter of choice, if you don't want a slave, don't get one. There is nothing in the constitution that says I can't have one, it is legal and there is nothing you can do about it. And they where right.

Then the country began to grow, and as new states were the union, there was the question of whether or not they would be slave states or not. Now the states in the south saw a problem coming. If most of these states were free, that view would gain a popular majority, and the federal government might pass some law that slavery was illegal everywhere, They argued that slavery, was not prohibited in the constitution and claimed it was a state right. Seeing this was not going to happen and facing a growing storm driven by the underlying moral truth that slavery was wrong. They left the union.

In the interest of some brevity

Skip to Lincoln declares the slaves free in the emancipation proclamation, But even Lincoln was much less than sure this would survive a constitutional challenge in the court. And in hind sight most legal opinions is, it would not. What was needed to end slavery was an amendment to the constitution. And so there was.

Now if you want a real moral dilemma it is generally believed to be true, that Lincoln extended the war, and the loss of life, in order to get the constitutional amendment and avoid the south entering the union and challenging the emancipation proclamation in court

Why do you think that the action of reproduction is an exercise of any right? — tim wood

If society allows us to do something then it is a right. Anyone can do any action that is possible and ignore societies strictures but if you want to discuss abortion in the framework of societies strictures and morality then society allows people to have children.

My point is that why should people have to defend having an abortion and not have to defend creating a child. As I have said someone can suffer far more after they are born than in the womb, or if they weren't born, so creating a child has a lot of ramifications and the child is not created at her request.

Antinatalists consider creating a child worse than terminating a pregnancy. The anti abortionists do not seem concerned with the ethics of creating a child in the first place and the lack of consent involved and the future suffering of the child preferring to focus on the time in the womb which no one has in memories and where no apparent suffering is involved in that brief existence.

A quibble. A one second old embryo has minimal worth, but a 10 year old child infinite worth. At what moment in time does this thing have sufficient worth to cause us to protect it fully? That moment is called personhood. — Hanover

No, no, no. That's not actually reflective of reality. There is no objective point at which sufficient worth can be attained. The whole reason why this topic is so controversial is because there is such variation. Different people value this "thing" differently or not at all depending on a number of subjective factors. People have different feelings, different priorities, different ways of thinking. That's the key determinant here, not personhood. Your rules are not the rules. There are no rules we must all adhere to, we each set our own.

No, no, no. That's not actually reflective of reality. There is no objective point at which sufficient worth can be attained. The whole reason why this topic is so controversial is because there is such variation. Different people value this "thing" differently or not at all depending on a number of subjective factors. People have different feelings, different priorities, different ways of thinking. That's the key determinant here, not personhood. Your rules are not the rules. There are no rules we must all adhere to, we each set our own. — S

This strikes me as a global objection to ethical analysis generally and a declaration of ethical subjectivism,

You speak of the massive variations in opinions and subjective viewpoints, but there's actually a well formed consensus on whether the intentional killing of a healthy, bouncing baby boy is unethical. If we can't say whether the killing of an embryo is objectively wrong because all such determinations are necessarily subjective, then it follows we can't say the same for the murder of you and me. If I've misunderstood your position and you actually believe there is an objective basis to declare the murder of you or me unethical, then you'll have to explain why those same objective criteria cannot be used to evaluate what may rightly be done to embryos.

You’re being obtuse. You are a human being; you have been one from the moment you began to develop. You did not develop from a sperm cell, you did not develop from an egg cell, you have never been a liver cell, you have never been a fingernail. The combination of the former two was your conception and beginning; the latter two are simply a part of you. — AJJ

Why was a I a human being the minute I began to develop? If you keep saying it, does it just become true?

If I have a stack of wood, a saw, and a set of plans, do I have a table?

If I have a stack of wood, a saw, and a set of plans, do I have a table? — Hanover

No, for the same reason a sperm and an egg when separate don’t give you a human being. If it was the case that putting those things in a pile caused them to form themselves, then yes, you’d have an embryonic table, and eventually a fully developed table.

This strikes me as a global objection to ethical analysis generally and a declaration of ethical subjectivism, — Hanover

No objection whatsoever to ethical analysis generally. A declaration of ethical subjectivism? Why not?

You speak of the massive variations in opinions and subjective viewpoints, but there's actually a well formed consensus on whether the intentional killing of a healthy, bouncing baby boy is unethical. — Hanover

I agree. That's not what I meant. I meant that there's a variation within a particular range to the extent that it makes this a highly controversial topic. This discussion and countless others are a testament to that. These variations have significant consequences in terms of normative ethics.

If we can't say whether the killing of an embryo is objectively wrong because all such determinations are necessarily subjective, then it follows we can't say the same for the murder of you and me. — Hanover

Correct. An objective morality is neither epistemologically justified nor necessary. It's just a shock tactic on your part to bring up murder, I suspect. I certainly judge murder to be deeply wrong. My moral overview is not that nothing is wrong and that therefore anything goes, which is the suggestion I suspect you of planting. I just don't believe in objective morality.

If I've misunderstood your position and you actually believe there is an objective basis to declare the murder of you or me unethical, then you'll have to explain why those same objective criteria cannot be used to evaluate what may rightly be done to embryos. — Hanover

You've not misunderstood.

Looking at this - pretty sure it wont be the last thread on abortion - but this will be my last post on it (with one caveat - i will answer direct questions if it would just be rude not to)

Here is where the whole moral argument is right now.

MORALITY
morality itself - is there some level of morality that has a wide application, would be generally accepted as moral or immoral, or is all morality relative.

one must assume there is some generally accepted concept of morality to continue

IF ONE BELIEVES ALL MORALITY IS RELATIVE - STOP HERE

PERSONHOOD
The arguments about personhood are all arguments of if the biology of humans or something else give the fetus moral standing. Although often debated on forums like this - in large measure it has been abandoned in most academic and serious arguments on abortion. The reason for this is that for each criteria given there is a case where such a criteria is only used in the case of the fetus, and not used in the case of a born human. this is just a long series of begging the question.

There is one major exception. Dr. Singer continues to argue that it is not biology that makes us human, it is that we are embodied minds that make us human beings. He argues that this occurs somewhere in early childhood and as such would allow infanticide.

IF ONE BELIEVES NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS THAT A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON BECAUSE A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON - STOP HERE

FUTURE OF VALUE ARGUMENT (FOVA)
Despite the unsupported dismissals of the argument on the board. This argument is regarded almost universally by academics and serious critics both pro choice and pro life as the best argument about the morality of abortion. it is, because it is based on things that almost all believe are intuitively true, or on pure biological fact.

we do intuitively believe it is wrong to unjustly kill people like you and me
we do intuitively believe we will exist in the future and we value it. ( I have dinner reservations for next week - and keep a calendar)
It is a fact that some number of days after the process of conception there does exist a unique human organism
and it is a fact that if you leave it alone - it will exist in the future as only one thing a human like us.

this argument hinges on the concept of "Ideal desire" that it is reasonable to assume that those, who due to some handicap or circumstance are unable to overtly express their desire, would desire things that would be best for them.

The argument against this is that one must have at least some minor level of cognitive ability to be considered as meriting the concept of "ideal desire"

IF YOU BELIEVE THE CONCEPT OF IDEAL DESIRE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FETUS - STOP HERE

RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE MOTHERS BODY
Even if you believe that the fetus is a moral actor, that by itself does not de facto give it a right
to the use of the mothers body. The mother possesses bodily autonomy and she can decide to let the fetus use it, or not.

This argument hinges on the concept of implied consent. Does having sex as an act of free will with a known possible outcome being a fetus with moral standing that has a unique need for the use of your body establish an implied consent

IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO IMPLIED CONSENT - STOP HERE

That is really basically where the world is in the argument

NONE OF WHICH HAS MUCH OF ANYTHING AT ALL WITH IF ABORTION SHOULD OR
SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL.

I have a question: when you speak of a moral argument, are you saying you think the average anti-abortion advocate is guided by rationality? I don't think that's true. I think all argumentation on both sides is ad hoc. Morality just doesn't spring forth from rational argument. It's shaped by emotion, norms, and experience.

IOW, the parties on each side aren't most fundamentally motivated by logic. If that was true, we could expect resolution in the form of one side coming to its senses. The divide is in the realm of norms and experience. Do you agree with that?

No objection whatsoever to ethical analysis generally. A declaration of ethical subjectivism? Why not? — S

It's the "says you" defense. I say abortion is wrong and you say "says you," and I say sure, and because I say it, it is so for me but not for you, and then we just sort of end things there.

I meant that there's a variation within a particular range to the extent that it makes this a highly controversial topic. — S

There are actually variations throughout the whole spectrum of opinions. A small minority find murder of children moral. Infanticide is practiced in some cultures. Are you committed to infanticide being moral for me if I say it is?

I certainly judge murder to be deeply wrong. My moral overview is not that nothing is wrong and that therefore anything goes, which is the suggestion I suspect you of planting. I just don't believe in objective morality. — S

You don't think anything goes for you, but I don't see upon what basis you can force me to adhere to your moral standards unless you think there's something inherently correct about them and that's it not just a matter of personal preference.

That may or not be true in general, would have no clue how to go about any real way of knowing.

But it makes no difference whatsoever in a philosophical discussion on the permissibly of abortion

If that was true, we could expect resolution in the form of one side coming to its senses. — frank

and both sides, making good, logical, reason based arguments are waiting for the other to realize it.

Don’t really know what you’re struggling with. Human life begins from its conception, from what other point can you say it begins? If it is going to be valued, it should be so from then for the reason I gave. — AJJ

Easy to say. If human life begins at conception, what is there just prior to conception? This sort of thoughtless remark is a hallmark of the quality of most pro-life argument. It has the power of rant, immune to argument and reason. But we're a philosophy site. Here if nowhere else you can be asked to account for your argument. Account then: according to you "human life begins at conception." What exactly does that mean? Do not answer in terms of human life, because your argument say that begins at conception.

Are you suggesting that life might begin before it is conceived? Or after?

“Life begins at conception” is a truism, you numpty. It’s just to say it begins when it is begun, and it begins once an egg cell has been fertilised.

:up:

FUTURE OF VALUE ARGUMENT (FOVA)
Despite the unsupported dismissals of the argument on the board. — Rank Amateur

Dismissed because unargued and unsupported, merely assumed and asserted. It seems pretty clear that you can rant, but you can't argue - likely do not even understand what argument is. The FOVA depends on assuming what is in question - and that's not argument. The mistake is begging the question. I call it ranting.

Now:

on - but this will be my last post on it — Rank Amateur

For all your effort you're quitting the field. Until and unless you wrestle with the substance of these things in real and substantive terms, you're wasting your time and your interlocutors. For example, I posted just above an argument, but you have not and perhaps cannot and will not respond to it. You just go back like a broken record to echo and repeat empty noise. Is that the best you can do? Is that all you got?

Ranting, by the way, depending on the purpose, where, and circumstance of it, is abuse.

Are you suggesting that life might begin before it is conceived? Or after?

“Life begins at conception” is a truism, you numpty. It’s just to say it begins when it begins, and it begins in this case once an egg cell has been fertilised. — AJJ

I am not suggesting anything. Implying maybe. I am saying that to say that human life begins at conception is an ignorantly stupid expression and rant most often used as a form of abuse in so-called argument, but that is in fact anti-argument. It's a variety of lie. People who repeat it are, well, you fill that in.

Outraged by my reply? You should be. I'm calling you out on your statement. If human life begins at conception, then from whence, out of what, does it come? Not a hard thing to amend, But it means dismounting its use as a dumb club. What's it going to be, the dumb stupid club, or reason?