just a quick grab off the internet, these folks who argue against marquis
seemed to have missed your point:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml
https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/2/119
https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/2/119
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Marquis_abortion_outline.htm
https://arcdigital.media/misunderstanding-marquis-ba6242d0d873
https://arcdigital.media/misunderstanding-marquis-ba6242d0d873


and in maybe the single best serious book on the subject “ A defense of Abortion” by David Boonin
he refers to FOV argument as “ the most significant potentiality argument for the immorality of abortion” and then goes on with his argument against - which I have shared with you - somehow – he missed it too.

Again take a deep breath - if all of these people have missed your point in an argument that has lasted 30 years, shouldn't you, just as a thoughtful person - only for the briefest of moments consider the possibility you could - dare i say - be wrong.

I have no original arguement to make on the issue - and in 18 pages have not seen an origiinal one against -

if originality was a requirement on this forum it would require much less band width

The hypothetical judge just above, in my opinion, is not making a case for moral or ethical responsibility, or cause. I'm guessing he orders support as the defendant's burden to help defray the cost of an expense he created, as opposed to others paying for it. — tim wood

and the difference between " burden to --- an expense he created" and responsibility is ???

This is really hard to continue with — Rank Amateur

Agreed. And since we do not seem to be getting anywhere, I think it's time to quit for the time being. I cannot seem to get my point across to you, and your responses often don't make sense to me.

Perhaps some other participant will be able to make a better case.

agree - seem to be talking passed each other, and sure i am in no small measure to blame - enjoy the rest of your day

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?)

Try just reading your sources. You remind me of a classmate years ago who wanted to enlist me in a scheme to cheat on a German final exam. His plan was so convoluted and complicated I finally had tell him just to try learning the language,it would be far simpler!.

Of the six sites you listed, there are only four. I've scanned them. in all of them is the same equivocation. They-all seem to recognize and acknowledge it, and work with it as such. It's you who do not. Go. And. Read!

An assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral actor. — Rank Amateur

And it isn't; or rather, its needs are far outweighed by those of the woman.

And it isn't; or rather, its needs are far outweighed by those of the woman. — Banno

Based on what objective criteria?

:gasp:

and the difference between " burden to --- an expense he created" and responsibility is ??? — Rank Amateur

It is not responsibility in any general sense, or in any sense other than what it is for, but responsibility in a very narrow sense. But why did you ask? I'd have thought you'd see that and not have to ask.

who is to say the child or child that was never to be amounts to nothing however twisted this concept may be for you to grasp or how horrible and extremely offending, if it dose offend you then that i am sorry for but the alternate perspective here is this, the child is gone its body now fertilizes the ground and in that begins new life. however horrible this may sound one cannot say that the person who was never born didn't effect the world in some way.

If the results are direct and predictable, there is no problem with responsibility. If they are neither - like a butterfly effect - then there is a problem.. — Echarmion

Excuse me for jumping in here, but you aren't actually suggesting that the possible consequences of unprotected sex are a big mystery, are you?

An assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral actor.
— Rank Amateur

And it isn't; or rather, its needs are far outweighed by those of the woman. — Banno

You're right that the foetus is not a moral actor. You get a gold star for that. I'll swap "needs" for "concerns" and say that concerns relating to the woman don't necessarily outweigh concerns relating to the foetus.

Also, I find it kind of funny how you're targeting weaker opponents and avoiding the more challenging ones. I do that sometimes as well. :smirk:

Excuse me for jumping in here, but you aren't actually suggesting that the possible consequences of unprotected sex are a big mystery, are you? — S

No, I was only establishing the boundaries of responsibility in general. Which, thinking about it, might have been confusing.

I think a case can be made that a pregnancy resulting from protected sex is sufficiently unlikely that the responsibility is too minor to base significant consequences on it.

No, I was only establishing the boundaries of responsibility in general. Which, thinking about it, might have been confusing.

I think a case can be made that a pregnancy resulting from protected sex is sufficiently unlikely that the responsibility is too minor to base significant consequences on it. — Echarmion

Yes, but that would change if it resulted in pregnancy. And I don't really get why you'd switch the focus to protected sex. Isn't the point to consider the arguable counterexamples, and to focus on those which seem the strongest? A stronger counterexample against someone who is either rejecting or trying to underplay the responsibility involved would be a couple who don't really care that much about protection or the possible consequences of having unprotected sex. If that ends up resulting in an abortion, then I'd say that they're sure as hell responsible.

Yes, but that would change if it resulted in pregnancy. — S

Huh? I don't understand what you mean.

And I don't really get why you'd switch the focus to protected sex. Isn't the point to consider the arguable counterexamples, and to focus on those which seem the strongest? A stronger counterexample against someone who is either rejecting or trying to underplay the responsibility involved would be a couple who don't really care that much about protection or the possible consequences of having unprotected sex. If that ends up resulting in an abortion, then I'd say that they're sure as hell responsible. — S

Arguable counterexamples to what? My theory of responsibility? I am not rejecting the responsibility involved, I just argue that the circumstances matter.

I haven't yet formed a full argument on the morality of abortion. I take the easy way out and just poke at other people's arguments. One of the things I am poking at is that "they are responsible for the results of their actions" is not a sufficient argument. Not all results of an action carry responsibility, and just establishing responsibility does not allow one to attach any consequence.

Based on what objective criteria? — Inis

That an adult woman deserves more respect than a cyst.

...concerns relating to the woman don't necessarily outweigh concerns relating to the foetus. — S

Such a position shows a lack of respect for the woman.

An assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral actor.
— Rank Amateur

And it isn't; or rather, its needs are far outweighed by those of the woman.
— Banno

You're right that the foetus is not a moral actor. You get a gold star for that. I'll swap "needs" for "concerns" and say that concerns relating to the woman don't necessarily outweigh concerns relating to the foetus.

Also, I find it kind of funny how you're targeting weaker opponents and avoiding the more challenging ones. I do that sometimes as well. :smirk: — S

I don't know if you are addressing Rank or me, or both of us. Nor can I tell if the weaker opponents(sic) are foetuses or folk who have submitted posts here.

Quality.

If they fail the test, then they ought to carry through to birth. — S

Well, no; if they fail the test they are legally so required. That has nothing to do with a moral imperative.

Huh? I don't understand what you mean. — Echarmion

I understood your point to be that a couple shouldn't be held anywhere near as morally responsible for creating a pregnancy if they took the right the precautions, like the guy wearing a condom. I agree with that. But in response to that, my point is that they're still very much morally responsible for what they do regarding the pregnancy going forward.

Arguable counterexamples to what? My theory of responsibility? I am not rejecting the responsibility involved, I just argue that the circumstances matter.

I haven't yet formed a full argument on the morality of abortion. I take the easy way out and just poke at other people's arguments. — Echarmion

Okay.

One of the things I am poking at is that "they are responsible for the results of their actions" is not a sufficient argument. Not all results of an action carry responsibility, and just establishing responsibility does not allow one to attach any consequence. — Echarmion

Well, your poking doesn't seem to have done much, at least not in relation to my position on the relevance of responsibility. There are some clearcut cases where they're very much morally responsible for the results of their actions, and there are some clearcut cases - as you've pointed out - where they're not anywhere near as morally responsible for the results of their actions, and either way, they're very much responsible for what they do going forward, which is what ultimately matters.

Such a position shows a lack of respect for the woman. — Banno

So? Irresponsible women shouldn't be given the same level of "respect".

I don't know if you are addressing Rank or me, or both of us. Nor can I tell if the weaker opponents(sic) are foetuses or folk who have submitted posts here.

Quality. — Banno

I was addressing you, you silly goose. Rank's comment was only there to provide context.

Well, no; if they fail the test they are legally so required. That has nothing to do with a moral imperative. — Banno

Obviously it does if that's being used as your moral criteria, and funnily enough, that's exactly what I'm using as my moral criteria, as I've explained multiple times. Even a foetus has a bigger attention span.

That an adult woman deserves more respect than a cyst. — Banno

Why are you talking about cysts? That's very misleading, given that abortions aren't necessary until around eight weeks, and that at around eight weeks it's a foetus, not an embryo, and obviously not a cyst. Cysts don't have eyes, arms, legs, and a beating heart. In fact, it's even possible for a human foetus to have a cyst, much like an adult human can. (Source).

I understood your point to be that a couple shouldn't be held anywhere near as morally responsible for creating a pregnancy if they took the right the precautions, like the guy wearing a condom. I agree with that. But in response to that, my point is that they're still very much morally responsible for what they do regarding the pregnancy going forward. — S

Ah, okay. No disagreement here.

Well, your poking doesn't seem to have done much, at least not in relation to my position on the relevance of responsibility. There are some clearcut cases where they're very much morally responsible for the results of their actions, and there are some clearcut cases - as you've pointed out - where they're not anywhere near as morally responsible for the results of their actions, and either way, they're very much responsible for what they do going forward, which is what ultimately matters. — S

This whole line of argument is only really relevant if you want to base the morality of the decision for or against abortion on previous choices the mother made. The way I understand your argument, you do not concern yourself with any such construction. To you (and please correct me if I am wrong here), the foetus has value, and that value is sufficient to warrant it's protection over the interests of the mother.

The answer that comes to mind regarding that position is that, if anyone is to judge the value of the foetus, it's the parents. You are welcome to have your own opinion, but if you're going to judge their judgement your reasons must be applicable in general.

This whole line of argument is only really relevant if you want to base the morality of the decision for or against abortion on previous choices the mother made. The way I understand your argument, you do not concern yourself with any such construction. To you (and please correct me if I am wrong here), the foetus has value, and that value is sufficient to warrant it's protection over the interests of the mother. — Echarmion

Only in certain cases: those that fail the moral test, namely the Abortion Act 1967.

The answer that comes to mind regarding that position is that, if anyone is to judge the value of the foetus, it's the parents. You are welcome to have your own opinion, but if you're going to judge their judgement your reasons must be applicable in general. — Echarmion

Oh god no. Parents can be extremely irresponsible. They shouldn't get free rein in every case.

Oh god no. Parents can be extremely irresponsible. They shouldn't get free rein in every case. — S

Their responsibility isn't the issue though, is it? They just need to make a value judgement. If you're going to say their judgement is wrong you are going to have to say why.

Their responsibility isn't the issue though, is it? They just need to make a value judgement. If you're going to say their judgement is wrong you are going to have to say why. — Echarmion

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. 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.

Unfortunately, there are extremists who make comparisons with cysts or advocate absolute freedom. There are also extremists at the other end of the spectrum. That kind of thinking is harmful.

So? Irresponsible women shouldn't be given the same level of "respect". — S

Why does the topic of abortion make otherwise smart people lose their minds? Or maybe it's just misogyny. What constitutes irresponsibility, who decides? What does "given" mean in this context - and who decides? What is "respect" in the context?

That's very misleading, given that abortions aren't necessary until around eight weeks, — S

??? Are you thinking that pregnancy is like a cold at first, and may "self-cure" and go away by itself?

Why does the topic of abortion make otherwise smart people lose their minds? — tim wood

Tell me about it!

Or maybe it's just misogyny. — tim wood

Or maybe you're full of it and that's a downright condemnable suggestion if directed at me. The last recourse of a desperate and emotional ideologue. This is why leftists get a bad reputation. You're letting the team down.

What constitutes irresponsibility, who decides? — tim wood

I wish you would stop repeatedly asking me these frankly stupid questions like "Who decides?". If only you could be conditioned in some way. Ah! Have you tried using the elastic band technique? You put it around your wrist, and then every time you feel the urge to ask a stupid question, you give it a pull and let go so that it pings back, creating a painful sensation.

What do you think we're here for? And why should I repeat myself regarding what I consider to be irresponsible and why? Pay closer attention. Think on it some more.

What does "given" mean in this context - and who decides? What is "respect" in the context? — tim wood

You can ask Banno what he meant by "respect". That's why I put it in scare quotes. I could venture a guess though. Something along the lines of treating someone how they ought or deserve to be treated, but obviously we're not a hive mind on that one.

??? Are you thinking that pregnancy is like a cold at first, and may "self-cure" and go away by itself? — tim wood

Can you please put a bit more thought into your questions and react in a less knee-jerk way? That would be helpful. Abortion is not the same thing as other methods of birth control. The topic is abortion. The clue is in the title. Once again, the funny thing is, you're the one who created this discussion. You're the one who wrote the title.

Can you please put a bit more thought into your questions and react in a less knee-jerk way? That would be helpful. — S

All right.

Tell me about it!
Or maybe it's just misogyny.
— tim wood
Or maybe you're full of it and that's a downright condemnable suggestions if directed at me. — S

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. When you write this:

So? Irresponsible women shouldn't be given the same level of "respect". — S

it appears to be on full display. Perhaps I should just have asked you what you mean by "should."

And you mock my questioning - fair enough. But you answer not at all. Maybe you're just playing at devil's advocate.....

I wish you would stop asking these frankly stupid questions. What do you think we're here for? — S

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.

But I suspect you may have trouble answering, and that the density of the prejudice I infer makes it difficult for you to see through or beyond it.

And I have no idea what you mean by this:

That's very misleading, given that abortions aren't necessary until around eight weeks, — S

-----

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. — S

Is this the value you're on about? In my opinion terms of endearment can inform but cannot conclude. Technical language has its place - or do you disagree?

The question of the OP is:

A pregnant woman wants to have an abortion. What if any are grounds for controlling as to whether or when or under what circumstances she may proceed?.... Roe v. Wade is a pretty good set of rules. — tim wood

So far, no comment on Roe that I recall, but the offering of a seeming-similar bit of UK law. And plenty of not-to-the-point beliefs and attitudes - a lot of knee-jerk, as you put it. And oddly enough, consistently to the end of strangling thoughtful discourse. In the OP I called it ranting. I was wasting my time. Those I've challenged for cause have just kept ranting, or withdrawn (actually both). But they never replied substantively. Which are you going to be?