A seed is not a tree. A sapling is a potential tree. A pre-26th week old fetus is not a person. A baby is a potential person. — 180 Proof
My, my, the things we do for women. — TheMadFool
Yes but the value of a seed lies in its potential (tree), not in itself. — TheMadFool
But I think 180's point with that analogy is that an actual tree is not the same as a potential tree, and so for instance we would not say that cleaning scattered seeds in a garden should be punished just as harshly as burning an equal amount of fully grown trees, because both are “deforesting”. — Amalac
1. If you destroy the fetus then you destroy the baby (that's what abortion is - potential) — TheMadFool
2. If you can't destroy the baby then you can't destroy the fetus (1 contra) — TheMadFool
7. If you destroy the seed then you destroy the tree (potential) — TheMadFool
8. If you can't destroy the tree then you can't destroy the seed (7 contra) — TheMadFool
11. If a seed is not a tree then you can destroy the seed (your claim) — TheMadFool
Does a fetus deserve moral consideration? — Oppyfan
No, you destroy the potential baby (the fetus) — Amalac
1. If you destroy the fetus then you destroy the baby (that's what abortion is - potential)
— TheMadFool
No, you destroy the potential baby (the fetus) (I'm thinking about a 1 year old as an example of a baby, but perhaps you can tell me which age you are thinking of). A potential baby is not a baby, and you can't destroy what doesn't exist. — Amalac
Remember, a woman's concern is the actual baby, — TheMadFool
Not always. Sometimes the baby isn't the issue. In fact, they might love to have the baby. But the fetus is killing them. — James Riley
However, the abortion debate is usually not about such life and death situations but about women just being able to undergo a procedure to expel the fetus from the uterus even if only on a whim. — TheMadFool
Destroying the fetus, destroys the baby, no? — TheMadFool
Remember, a woman's concern is the actual baby — TheMadFool
To do something about the actual baby, the woman does something to the potential baby — TheMadFool
It's crystal clear to me as it should be to you. — TheMadFool
No — Amalac
I was just challenging your unqualified statement.
As to the usual debate, consider the case where the fetus is killing the woman but she wouldn't want the baby, and would abort anyway if she otherwise could. In that case, does big government first ask the women "Hey, do you want the baby?" And then does big government vet the doctor's determination that the fetus is killing the woman? Does big government get to seek a second opinion from another doctor? Who vets the qualifications or objective abilities of that doctor? Big government?
Personally, I think this is all noise but I'm curious how the pro-life crowd would have big government pursue these issues, logistically — James Riley
However, before we go into such detail, we need to get our hands on the bigger picture - — TheMadFool
1. Doing something to the potential baby (fetus) implies doing something to the actual baby. — TheMadFool
If 1 were false, destroying the fetus should have no effect on the baby — TheMadFool
which is just another way of saying you could destroy the fetus and still give birth to the baby. — TheMadFool
I've already dealt with the bigger picture, in this thread, yesterday. As stated, this "detail" and "finer points" question is really just noise. Idle curiosity on my part. No big deal if you don't want to opine on it. — James Riley
1. You can't do anything to what doesn't exist (the actual baby doesn't exist, only the potential baby does). — Amalac
Non sequitur/ straw man, that's not another way of saying that at all.
Obviously, if a woman wants to have a baby, she must not destroy the fetus that she plans on having become a baby (the baby that the fetus will become), but that doesn't mean that destroying the fetus has effects on some non-existent baby.
Anyway, here's a consecuence of your “argument”:
1. Doing something to the potential tree (seed) implies doing something to the actual tree.
2. If 1 were false, destroying the seed should have no effect on the tree, which is just another way of saying that you could destroy the seed and still grow a tree (the tree that the seed would have become if it hadn't been destroyed).
3. Therefore, since 2 is preposterous, cleaning scattered seeds in a garden is deforesting, and should be punished in the same way as burning the same number of trees. — Amalac
That means an actual baby should be born even if I destroy the fetus. — TheMadFool
No, that doesn't mean that at all (if you mean the same baby that the destroyed fetus would have become). — Amalac
I can't do anything to the actual baby if I have an abortion i.e. if I destroy the fetus. — TheMadFool
an actual baby should be born even if I destroy the fetus. — TheMadFool
So, if I destroy the fetus, I destroy the baby. That's what I meant from the get go. — TheMadFool
(Okay, I'll go reeeeeeal slow :roll: ) "Value" to whom?Yes but the value of a seed lies in its potential (tree), not in itself. — TheMadFool
I meant that this:
I can't do anything to the actual baby if I have an abortion i.e. if I destroy the fetus.
— TheMadFool
Does not mean the same as, nor implies:
an actual baby should be born even if I destroy the fetus.
— TheMadFool
It also does not mean:
So, if I destroy the fetus, I destroy the baby. That's what I meant from the get go.
— TheMadFool
Also, I'm still waiting for your response to the argument that cleaning scattered seeds is deforestation — Amalac
"To others?" – to whom?
And what does "value in itself" even mean? — 180 Proof
Scenario 2
X aborts the fetus. X doesn't give birth to the baby
X did something to the fetus. Something happened to the baby — TheMadFool
In other words, it's not possible that X can do something to the fetus & X can have a baby (that's what abortion is all about). — TheMadFool
If you say that doing something to the fetus does nothing to the baby then this should be possible: X does something to the fetus & X can have a baby (like X did something to the tooth and X can have a baby). This is impossible. — TheMadFool
Ergo, To do something to the fetus implies to do something to the baby. — TheMadFool
Not to do something to the baby implies not to do something to the fetus. — TheMadFool
Nothing happened to the baby, there is no baby to begin with. — Amalac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.