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. — tim wood

I certainly don't consider women to be second-class citizens or that only men should decide their fate. That's crazy, and even interpreting my comment in that way is way more sexist than the way that I think about these issues, which is that gender is and should be irrelevant. Banno has done the same sort of thing. It really is a dirty and shameful tactic.

It doesn't matter that she's a woman and I'm a man, it wouldn't matter if she were a man and I were a woman, or if we were both women, or if we were both men. It's a people problem, and it's more specifically an irresponsible people problem. Obviously men can't get pregnant, but even so, I've said that the couple should be held responsible, with some exceptions like rape obviously.

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

It only appears that way to you because of how you interpreted it. Remember the principle of charity?

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

You do remember that we've been over your style of questioning before, though? You bombard me with questions that are perhaps rhetorical, and seem really inappropriate. I've answered them in a literal manner and sarcastically. What is your purpose in repeatedly asking me questions like, "Who decides?". Are they purely rhetorical, and is your purpose to defeat me through exasperation at your tactic of repeated bombardment of the same point over and over and over again? Or are they literal, and is your purpose to defeat me through your tactic of attempting to get me to repeat my answer until I'm sick to death and give up?

By "given" I meant judged or treated as. I don't think that irresponsible people (who happen to be women if we're talking about a pregnant person) should be judged or treated in exactly the same way as responsible people. And don't jump to conclusions about what that might entail. Instead of jumping to conclusions, review what I've already said, and give it some thought, and try to be charitable. Or, failing that, at least ask me to clarify.

This irresponsible vs. responsible is a pretty basic point in ethics. Like you said, I'm not too sure why people lose their minds and throw basic ethics out of the window when it comes to abortion. Do you disagree with this basic point? Maybe you do. I consider that to be extreme liberalism which goes too far, it goes beyond good sense, and this is coming from someone with very socially liberal views, generally.

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. — tim wood

Ahhhh! But I have addressed them already! Look back over our discussion! :rage:

The kind of questions I was referring to are the, "By whose authority?", "Who are you to judge?", "Whose business is it?", "Who decides?", sort of questions. Have you forgotten my answer? Be honest.

The rest of your post is dismissive and, ironically, insubstantial. We're nearing the end of our discussion if you continue like this, because I admit that you're doing my head in.

If the value I see in a foetus really is so alien to you, so unfathomable, despite talking about what we have in common, and in a way which is more appealing to emotion, then maybe we should just end this. I don't want to waste my time. I'd be a little disgusted though. Wouldn't you be at least a little disgusted at someone who didn't understand seeing kittens as valuable, and thought that it was a man's right to drown kittens if he wants to, because wanting is enough? Now, before you kick off, I'm not suggesting that these situations are equal, it's just an attempt to get you to understand my perspective to at least some extent.

because I admit that you're doing my head in. — S

You shameless flirt and flatterer, you!

I ask these questions that author your annoyance because when I answer them, my answer seems arbitrary and ungrounded; in other words, I cannot satisfy myself that my answer is the same as anyone else's answer - as I might with a simple expression in arithmetic.

Of course irresponsible women (by which you mean irresponsible men as well as irresponsible women) should be treated - "respected" - differently - than what, exactly? The implication here is that responsible women are treated the same as responsible men, and that's rare enough to require it's own explication. But again, we don't know what any of the terms mean with even any certainty - or at least the certainty needed to proceed, here.

But why is anyone on about this at all? I think we all agree that no one has any absolute right to anything, which takes in abortion. If a woman wants one, though, what may restrict her right to seek and get one? And we're talking about her "respectability" an undefined concept imposed by unidentified and with unidentified qualifications judges?

Or the status of an embryo, or fetus? This last is certainly arguable - as proven by the amount of argument. But is the argument substantive? Is it ever an inquiry into the-what-it-is of the matter? It's more a matter of who yells loudest and longest, in extreme cases who reaches for his rifle.

We're left with Roe, and an English parallel-seeming law. But pro-lifers in the US would burn Roe if they could, and in every way try to ignite it, even at the corners.

Let's try this. Do you endorse Roe without reservation or can you improve on it? Or if you do not accept Roe at all, why not - what's its flaw, keeping in mind it's law and not either of maths or philosophy - and with what would you replace it? No need for more than a few sentences to get us started.

Let's try this. Do you endorse Roe without reservation or can you improve on it? Or if you do not accept Roe at all, why not - what's its flaw, keeping in mind it's law and not either of maths or philosophy - and with what would you replace it? No need for more than a few sentences to get us started. — tim wood

I haven't even read it! :lol:

The Abortion Act seems good enough to me. All I know about Roe v Wade is that it was a landmark legal case which set a precedent about abortion in the US, and that it's probably similar to the Abortion Act. What's the difference? And who cares if there's no big difference? You mentioned the two doctors thing, but I don't see that as a big difference.

Nor I the English act.

As a layman reader - a qualification that might matter - I read Roe as an application of law, not a creation as some hold. In a nutshell: 1) that historically subjects are the property of the king and that he is interested in their well-being. Inasmuch as the mortality rate for women who terminate early is lower than for women who go to term, in principle the king, as the law, has no interest in restricting early term termination. As this changes through the course of the pregnancy, so does the king's interests. Roe breaks this into first, second, and third trimesters.

2) Fetuses have as potential rights the same rights they would have after being born, but that absent live birth, do not become "perfected" or realized. Or, fetuses have no actual rights. The significance of this distinction is obvious where inheritance is an issue.

3) There exists in the US constitution an implied right to privacy.

4) Roe acknowledges the interests of the several states - it's state law that controls abortion; Roe merely constrains state law. In concession to state interests, (read: pro-life interests active in state legislatures), Roe recognizes a) their interest, and b) to accommodate it, well, this from the text:

"State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term."

Some people in the US think this is a license to murder. I think it's a pretty good argument, not to be lightly overthrown. Assuming I'm an accurate reporter, anything here stand out as a problem?

Nor I the English act. — tim wood

But I made it really easy! Look, since this is about ethics more than law, I'll change the reference to law into a reference to morality, and I'll just give you the part that I think is most relevant. This should take less than a minute to read:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person is not immoral under this principle relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family.

Assuming I'm an accurate reporter, anything here stand out as a problem? — tim wood

It's either lacking or is more ambiguous. Where is the above? Look, it's really simple: if it doesn't have the above, then I don't think that it's as good. The bit about two doctors rather than one is of little importance, relatively speaking, so forget about that. I would be willing to compromise, if need be, on the two doctors part and settle for a single doctor instead.

The important part is the part that I underlined.

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?) — tim wood

so I am sure you are right, but I have gone back over those links I sent you - and I can't find the quoted line above in them -

Or am i reading your post incorrectly.

is this part "Marquis makes the points that:..." not sure what the .... part is, from the links, and are you adding the

Alas, he never did, he merely assumed them, and he clearly says that he was assuming them.


which if this is the case, you are just once again making the same point over and over and over again -

but to address your point yet again.

In a syllogistic argument, the person making the argument states propositions they claim to be true, and if those propositions are true - lead to a logical conclusion.

If one believes the propositions are false, he argues back your proposition is false, because ....

If i understand your unique objection to this 30 year old argument is:

The proposition that people like you and i have a future that we value, and the the unjustified taking of that future is a significant harm to us.

When applied to the fetus is in effect begging the question

And is the equivalent of a proposition of there are flying pink horses in the air, therefor there are flying pink horses in the air.

When we did this the first time, i countered with, it is not the same thing, because i claim your proposition is false - because i looked outside and there are no pink horses in the air. Since your proposition is false, your argument fails. But it fails because your proposition is false. If you said I propose that sometimes there are clouds in the sky, therefor sometimes there are clouds in the sky. Your argument would be not be false -

So, if you think Marquis' propositions are false, you need to show how they are false. Where this got us before was - no I had to prove to you the proposition was true for you to accept it. Which is not what an argument is, otherwise every argument ever made can be defeated with the universal objection

Your proposition is false, because i don't believe it and I don't have to tell you why, and until you convince me it is still false so there ...

at least that is my understanding where we are on this point.

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. — S

We can call it a child, if you want. I am not squeamish about the terms. But I think the reason to use technical terms in a discussion such as this one is to avoid the connotations that come with the more common terms, which can distort an argument.

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. — S

But the feelings you have when confronted with a certain judgement only tell us about you, not about the judgement. You may well not drown the kittens, or kill the child, when it is your decision to make. But when it's someone else's decision to make, you presumably want to also tell them "you should not drown those kittens, you should not kill that child". If you then tell them "because it would cause me negative feeling" or "Because I would not do it", whether or not they listen will depend entirely on whether they value you as a person. Which is to say they're going to make a decision about you, not about kittens or children.

Since we all live in a society, and usually have some say about where that society is headed, we need to differentiate between what we would like to do and what we would like other people to do. "I would do X, so everyone should do X" is the attitude of either a god or a petty tyrant.

We can call it a child, if you want. I am not squeamish about the terms. But I think the reason to use technical terms in a discussion such as this one is to avoid the connotations that come with the more common terms, which can distort an argument. — Echarmion

Oh yes, I completely agree. That's why I've been using the technical terminology. But that was just a reminder of what's being left out, and the effect that leaving it out can have. There are people here who are giving out the impression that the experience is alien and unrelatable. It's almost like they've forgotten or are just pretending to be all cold and robotic.

But the feelings you have when confronted with a certain judgement only tell us about you, not about the judgement. You may well not drown the kittens, or kill the child, when it is your decision to make. But when it's someone else's decision to make, you presumably want to also tell them "you should not drown those kittens, you should not kill that child". If you then tell them "because it would cause me negative feeling" or "Because I would not do it", whether or not they listen will depend entirely on whether they value you as a person. Which is to say they're going to make a decision about you, not about kittens or children. — Echarmion

But it's all about value judgements, or that's what it boils down to anyway, however you look at it, whether we talk about mine or theirs or in relation to this or that. There's no way around that. I could only try my best to get them to see things my way. And I'm sure I could do much better than how you've envisioned the exchange!

Since we all live in a society, and usually have some say about where that society is headed, we need to differentiate between what we would like to do and what we would like other people to do. "I would do X, so everyone should do X" is the attitude of either a god or a petty tyrant. — Echarmion

But liberalism has its limits, wouldn't you agree? I'm very socially liberal, but you ought to have some red lines. Don't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Don't have unprotected sex if you're not willing to accept the possible consequences or if you have an uncaring or blasé attitude about abortion. The former is immoral and against the law. The latter is immoral, but not against the law. That seems right to me.

since this is about ethics more than law, I'll change the reference to law into a reference to morality, and I'll just give you the part that I think is most relevant.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of immorality under this principle relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family.

It's either lacking or is more ambiguous. Where is the above? Look, it's really simple: if it doesn't have the above, then I don't think that it's as good. The bit about two doctors rather than one is of little importance, relatively speaking, so forget about that. I would be willing to compromise, if need be, on the two doctors part and settle for a single doctor instead.
The important part is the part that I underlined. — S

All right, we seem on a good track. We weigh this in the scale of ethics - which does not preclude law. But we stay on the ethical side. In the OP I identified ethics with morality, as being near synonyms, granted?

I assume "guilty of immorality" is just legal jargon. I doubt if England has any laws against immorality, they being sensible enough to refine any such law to particulars of concrete behaviour.

(1) Two doctors: if two doctors is standard practice for a wide variety of procedures, then I discern nothing discriminatory in the practice. But if just for abortion, then why? I am not asking if there is a why but just what that why is, and why it is - on what it is based. If the latter is the case, and you have no problem with it, then that seems a problem to me.

(a) The logic of the "and" would appear to condemn even to death a mother whose pregnancy has exceeded twenty-four weeks. Seem ethical or moral to you? Does it seem fair to you?

Under twenty-four weeks: this really makes no sense. It's long recognized that an early termination presents very little risk. That is, continuation is in almost every case more risky, and the language is "risk, greater than." Or maybe it makes a lot of sense, viz, up to twenty-four weeks, your call. After twenty-four weeks, no call at all. But who establishes these criteria, and why, and on what grounds?

I am pretty sure that Roe permits termination to protect the mother's life - and I think for additional reasons, rape, incest and the like. (Although I have always wondered at the pro-lifer's allowance of these exceptions, which most allow: if their arguments are at all sound, then the circumstances of the conception must be irrelevant - and granting this opens a door and shines a light onto pro-life motivation that reveals their disgusting and ugly hearts, that "murder" is warranted if the bairn's creation wasn't kosher.)

Everyone has feelings on this topic; I respect that as blunt fact. But the logic of it all is rigorous and relentless. And folks like to flirt with that, but they quickly draw back when it gets serious and they don't like it.

In effect, then, I am calling out what I argue are flaws in (1)(a). In your court.

which if this is the case, you are just once again making the same point over and over and over again — Rank Amateur

Yep. Try this. If this car had an engine, it would run just fine. Let's assume it has an engine. That is, I (the author of this argument) accept by assumption that the car has an engine without affirming in the least that it does have one. Then modus ponens and the granted assumption, the car runs just fine. Now, the folks you adduce as references understand this argument; they understand the big IF at the heart of it, and the assumption as an assumption.

You, however, argue that the car runs, which none of them ever, ever did. The argument is a dead letter. That is why I keep inviting you to make your own.

Does the car in fact run? Maybe. The argument doesn't say it or claim it, so from the standpoint of any argument you have presented, it doesn't. If it does run, the argument adduced is irrelevant. Thus it's up to you to make some conclusive statement about the car and whether it runs, and up to you to support that assertion if it seems that on its face that notwithstanding your claim, in fact it does not run.

I was addressing you, you silly goose. — S

Ah. So your writing is really that bad. OK.

All right, we seem on a good track. We weigh this in the scale of ethics - which does not preclude law. But we stay on the ethical side. In the OP I identified ethics with morality, as being near synonyms, granted? — tim wood

Yes.

I assume "guilty of immorality" is just legal jargon. I doubt if England has any laws against immorality, they being sensible enough to refine any such law to particulars of concrete behaviour. — tim wood

Sigh. Do you have to be so pedantic?

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person is not immoral under this principle relating to abortion when...

Better?

(1) Two doctors: if two doctors is standard practice for a wide variety of procedures, then I discern nothing discriminatory in the practice. But if just for abortion, then why? I am not asking if there is a why but just what that why is, and why it is - on what it is based. If the latter is the case, and you have no problem with it, then that seems a problem to me. — tim wood

Sigh. We've been over this already and I told you that it was relatively unimportant. I don't wish to argue over this.

(a) The logic of the "and" would appear to condemn even to death a mother whose pregnancy has exceeded twenty-four weeks. — tim wood

No, that simply doesn't follow, and it doesn't indicate that you're thinking about this imaginatively. Our health service would act within their power to prevent that from happening, as this link confirms.

Under twenty-four weeks: this really makes no sense. — tim wood

It really does. Just read into it, my knowledge only goes so far, and I don't want to just transfer information from some other source across to you each time you don't understand something. I'm not a doctor at all, let alone one who specialises in this area. I expect that they'd be in a much better position to explain this sort of stuff to you.

I'm tired, it's late here, and I have to do some preparation before flying out to Budapest later, so I'm going to cut it short, at least for now, and maybe revisit this at a later time.

Ah. So your writing is really that bad. OK. — Banno

Another brilliant contribution to the discussion there, Banjo. :clap:

Indeed.

Only as brilliant as that one “S”assy. And this one.

Ok, you are right the proposition is not conditional. It is "the car has an engine" , If you wish to argue it, you say, "the car does not have an engine because....."

You want to say, the car does not have an engine, because I don't believe it has an engine, and I don't have to tell you why, so until you can convince me, to my satisfaction, there is an engine. There is no engine just because-

So the argument fails because you say so.

But can we not do this about flying horses and cars, what is the specific proposition in Dr Marquis argument you want to claim is false, and why.

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

This stands.

The FOV argument has ben shown to be in error. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/250662)

The notion of predictable consequences as a way of forcing a pregnancy to term just doesn't get started. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/251717)

And @Bitter Crank did an excellent summation of what is actually motivating this discussion.

Patriarchy, misogyny, xenophobia.

So, what else we got?

@S's writing is inconsequential. @Inis was banned for being a bit of a dick.

Time to move on?

Boring Banno's blinkered banality brazenly bypasses brilliance by blocking breakthroughs.

Boring Banno's blithering balderdash backfires believably before bringing birdbrained buffoonery.

Boring Banno's blind brevity barely beats bloviation but bequeaths bother.

Time to move on? — Banno

The FOV argument has ben shown to be in error. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/250662) — Banno

You changed the argument into what you want it to say so it doesn't work, and then say see it doesn't work. That is just garbage.

At the time I told you there is nothing at all in the FOV argument that makes any claim of personhood, it was the whole point of the argument.

You defeat of FOV argument is completely in your head.

But don't feel bad, what you did is the very heart of most pro choice arguments.

The fetus is not a moral actor, because (fill in some arbitrary criteria- modified so it only applies to the fetus), now since it is not a moral actor we can kill it.

At the time I told you there is nothing at all in the FOV argument that makes any claim of personhood, it was the whole point of the argument. — Rank Amateur

Yes, that's what the argument pretends. But P1 assumes the foetus is a person; or the argument fails by illicitly deriving an ought from an is.

Your insistence that it's all biology and yet it tells us what we ought do is clearly the naturalistic fallacy.

Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral, and an important part of what makes it immoral is it deprives them of their future. — Rank Amateur

You use "people like us" to hide personhood. It's the killing of a person that is wrong, not the killing of a human.

Hence, it is acceptable to switch off life support when the person is no more.

my goodness, for like the 20th time. p1 of the argument has NOTHING to do with the fetus, NOTHING

Here is the whole logic of the argument

First- you have to show killing born humans is morally wrong, because if it is not immoral to kill born people you can't argue it is immoral to kill the unborn.

Next, it makes the case the major harm done when killing the born is the loss of their future, which they value

Next it just makes a pure biological argument that links a time line between born humans to the unborn humans they were at one time.

And says, that human organism has a future, just as we all had a future at the same exact time in our development

And says, if an unjustified taking of a future is immoral, it is immoral all the time, and the stage of development does not matter

That is the whole logic of the argument, and it has nothing to do with personhood, nothing

Sigh. Do you have to be so pedantic? — S

No. I can be fanciful. I can make stuff up. What's your pleasure?

Sigh. We've been over this already and I told you that it was relatively unimportant. I don't wish to argue over this. — S

This discussion concerns some of the ethics concerning abortion, not your comfort level. I raise a point, you're not interested. Not important to you? Surrender the point on merit.

No, that simply doesn't follow, and it doesn't indicate that you're thinking about this imaginatively. Our health service would act within their power to prevent that from happening, as this link confirms. — S

Imaginatively? In the UK is law applied "imaginatively"? Is what you provided the law itself? I looked at the site; it is as you say. But that is not what the 24-week limit says above. Read yours again. Do you not understand the operation of the "and" that I pointed out?

Under twenty-four weeks: this really makes no sense.
— tim wood
It really does. Just read into it, — S

I gave you such a reading. Did you read it? And to be sure it's an implied meaning, because in respect of the meaning I read into it, it is not explicit.

I'm not a doctor at all, let alone one who specialises in this area. I expect that they'd be in a much better position to explain this sort of stuff to you. — S

Understood, but you provided it . Did you understand what you were providing? Nor is it an explanation I'm looking for, rather someone who can make sense of at least what they themselves are arguing.

I suppose the English law makes sense, and makes no nonsense. As to the ethics of it, bad law can be notorious for unethical parts. I question two out of two parts you provide, one not really important to you, the other seemingly only understood "backwards," so to speak. And on that you appeal to imagination.

Presenting arguments not yours is a little like endorsing a check. If it comes back stamped NSF - not sufficient funds - as last endorser it's your problem.

killing born humans — Rank Amateur

Persons.

I'm very glad that men can't get pregnant -- what a drag! As she (Gloria Steinem) said, 'If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.'

yes p1 is all about you me, want to call us persons, I don't care.

But it had nothing at all, about fetuses, they are not even mentioned in p1. ALL P1 SAYS IS IT IS IMMORAL TO KILL PEOPLE LIKE US, BORN HUMAN BEINGS. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

After pages and pages what I have come to realize is that for many they don't care what the argument says, they disagree with it because they disagree with it. So much for philosophy.

But can we not do this about flying horses and cars, what is the specific proposition in Dr Marquis argument you want to claim is false, and why. — Rank Amateur

From the beginning of Marquis's paper:

" No doubt most philosophers affiliated with secular institutions of higher education believe that the anti-abortion position is either a symptom of irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated by seriously confused philosophical argument. The purpose of this essay is to undermine this general belief. This essay sets out an argument that purports to show, as well as any argument in ethics can show, that abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral, that it is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being. The argument is based on a major assumption. Many of the most insightful and careful writers on the ethics of abortion—such as Joel Feinberg, Michael Tooley, Mary Ann Warren, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., L.W. Sumner, John T. Noonan, Jr., and Philip Devine—believe that whether or not abortion is morally permissible stands or falls on whether or not a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end. The argument of this essay will assume, but not argue, that they are

The argument is based on a major assumption.....The argument of this essay will assume, but not argue, that they are.

Do you understand what these highlighted sentences mean?

At the time I told you there is nothing at all in the FOV argument that makes any claim of personhood, it was the whole point of the argument. — Rank Amateur

ALL P1 SAYS IS IT IS IMMORAL TO KILL PEOPLE LIKE US, BORN HUMAN BEINGS. Why is that so hard for you to understand? — Rank Amateur

I don't see how you can say that it is not about persons, and about persons, at the same time. hence:

You use "people like us" to hide personhood. It's the killing of a person that is wrong, not the killing of a human. — Banno

It's not immoral to kill what is human. If it were, then bleeding would be immoral.

It is not immoral to kill a human being. If it were, turning off life support would always be immoral.

It is immoral to kill a person.

Your pretend argument works by sliding from person in P1 to human in P7.