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

Yes but the value of a seed lies in its potential (tree), not in itself. Likewise, the value of a fetus is in its potential (baby). Pro-choicers and pro-lifers are on the same page on that score because neither makes sense if this weren't true.

The pro-choicer however equivocates between the seed (fetus) being a potential tree (baby) - wants to have an abortion - and not being a potential tree (fetus) - can have an abortion.

It doesn't matter anyway as consistency doesn't seem to be all that important.

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 cleansing a garden of scattered seeds should be punished just as harshly as burning an equal amount of fully grown trees, because both are “deforesting”.

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)

2. If you can't destroy the baby then you can't destroy the fetus (1 contra)

3. You can't destroy the baby (pro-choicers agree)

Ergo,

4. You can't destroy the fetus (2, 3 MP)

3. If a fetus is not a baby then you can destroy the fetus (pro-choicer)

4. A fetus is not a baby (pro-choicer - ignore potential)

Ergo,

5. You can destroy the fetus

Ergo,

6. You can destroy the fetus (ignore potential, pro-choicers do that) and you can't destroy the fetus (potential, that's why pro-choicers want an abortion) (4, 5 Conj) [Contradiction: Paradox]

Seed analogy,

7. If you destroy the seed then you destroy the tree (potential)

8. If you can't destroy the tree then you can't destroy the seed (7 contra)

9. You can't destroy the tree (can't burn forests)

10. You can't destroy the seed (8, 9 MP)

11. If a seed is not a tree then you can destroy the seed (your claim)

12. A seed is not a tree (ignore potential)

13. You can destroy a seed (11, 12 MP)

14. You can destroy a seed (ignore potential) and you can't destroy a seed (potential) [Contradiction: Paradox]

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.

The potential baby is not a baby in actu, just like a seed is not a tree in actu despite being a potential tree.

But what's your point here? Are you saying people who cleanse their garden of scattered seeds or crush them should be charged with deforestation? (That would be one of the absurd consequences, if arguments from “potentiality” with that logical structure were valid).

2. If you can't destroy the baby then you can't destroy the fetus (1 contra) — TheMadFool

That's only if 1 is true, which it isn't.

7. If you destroy the seed then you destroy the tree (potential) — TheMadFool

False, for the same reason 1 is false.

8. If you can't destroy the tree then you can't destroy the seed (7 contra) — TheMadFool

False, for the same reason 2 is false.

11. If a seed is not a tree then you can destroy the seed (your claim) — TheMadFool

That's not my claim, my claim is that if an argument with a logical structure such as:

«If I can prove that the fetus must be labeled as a person because it has “personhood”, then killing a fetus has to be punished just like we would punish murdering any other thing labeled as a person».

... were valid, then this other argument, which has exactly the same logical structure, would also be valid:

«If I can prove that the seeds must be labeled as a tree because they have “treehood”, then destroying a seed has to be punished just like we would punish burning the same amount of trees, therefore the person who cleansed their garden of scattered seeds should receive exactly the same punishment as those who burn just as many trees as the seeds he destroyed».

Since nobody seriously considers that the second conclusion is true («therefore the person who cleansed his garden of scattered seeds should receive exactly the same punishment as those who burn just as many trees as the seeds he destroyed»), then we conclude that arguments with such a logical structure are not valid, including the one about the potential baby.

Does a fetus deserve moral consideration? — Oppyfan

sure.

but you also have to give the pregnant woman moral consideration

and the man who the woman will rape for 20 years of child support lol

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

What's the reason for destroying the fetus (the potential baby)? Destroying the fetus, destroys the baby, no? Why else have an abortion if this weren't true? Remember, a woman's concern is the actual baby, To do something about the actual baby, the woman does something to the potential baby. There really is no point arguing about this. It's crystal clear to me as it should be to you.

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.

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

Indeed! There's less controversy in those scenarios where the fetus is a danger to the mother's well-being. 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.

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

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.

Destroying the fetus, destroys the baby, no? — TheMadFool

No, that’s like saying that destroying the seed destroys the tree it would have become otherwise. Once again, you can’t destroy or kill what doesn’t exist. Also, nobody would on that ground infer that crushing seeds is the same as deforesting.

Unless you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, in which case I can translate your sentence into one that perhaps makes more sense: if you destroy the fetus, the baby it might have become won’t exist in the future. Well yes, but so what? The burden of proof is on you to show why that implies that it is morally wrong to kill the fetus, because I don’t see how that follows at all.

And if you are going to say that anything that is potentially a baby should be treated just like a baby, then is killing spermatozoa (masturbating) murder as well?

Likewise, I could argue in the same fashion: if you destroy the seed, the tree it might have become won’t exist in the future, therefore crushing seeds or cleansing your garden of scattered seeds is deforesting. Are you willing to accept that? If not, you must agree that arguments with that logical structure are not valid.

Remember, a woman's concern is the actual baby — TheMadFool

So what? It does not follow that a fetus (potential baby) is a baby from that statement, her intentions for killing the fetus are wholly irrelevant to the question whether a fetus is or should be treated like a baby or not.

To do something about the actual baby, the woman does something to the potential baby — TheMadFool

Again, that does not mean that the potential baby is the same thing as the actual baby. Plus the actual baby doesn’t exist.

It's crystal clear to me as it should be to you. — TheMadFool

It’s crystal clear to me that a seed is not a tree, because a potential tree is not a tree in actu.
It’s crystal clear to me that a fetus is not a baby, because a potential baby is not a baby in actu.

No — Amalac

The logic is rather simple really. A woman doesn't want the actual baby when she visits a doctor to abort the fetus. In other words,

1. Doing something to the potential baby (fetus) implies doing something to the actual baby.

If 1 were false, destroying the fetus should have no effect on the baby which is just another way of saying you could destroy the fetus and still give birth to the baby. Preposterous!

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

These are important questions alright and they will need to be dealt with in the most reasonable manner possible. However, before we go into such detail, we need to get our hands on the bigger picture - let's not miss the woods for the trees. Once that's in the bag, we can discuss the finer points. That's how I feel we should tackle this problem.

However, before we go into such detail, we need to get our hands on the bigger picture - — 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.

1. Doing something to the potential baby (fetus) implies doing something to the actual baby. — TheMadFool

1. You can't do anything to what doesn't exist (the actual baby doesn't exist, only the potential baby does).

If 1 were false, destroying the fetus should have no effect on the baby — TheMadFool

Of course, destroying the fetus can have no effect on what doesn't exist, nor can anything else. The baby doesn't exist.

which is just another way of saying you could destroy the fetus and still give birth to the baby. — TheMadFool

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, cleansing a garden of scattered seeds is deforesting, and should be punished in the same way as burning the same number of trees.

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

No, no. I have to admit that the matter is more complex than can be dealt with in a single syllogism like the one I presented. Nevertheless, if the pro-choice position fails to make a stand that's internally consistent, it won't have many takers. Right? The pro-choice movement must first make sense, only then can it hope to gather supporters.

1. You can't do anything to what doesn't exist (the actual baby doesn't exist, only the potential baby does). — Amalac

Ok. I can't do anything to the actual baby if I have an abortion i.e. if I destroy the fetus. That means an actual baby should be born even if I destroy the fetus. Does that happen? I've never heard of such an incident in my life.

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).

No, that doesn't mean that at all (if you mean the same baby that the destroyed fetus would have become). — Amalac

So, if I destroy the fetus, I destroy the actual baby (the destroyed fetus would have become). That's what I meant from the get go.

Goodness gracious...

I mean 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 that:

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.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/564879

Yes but the value of a seed lies in its potential (tree), not in itself. — TheMadFool

(Okay, I'll go reeeeeeal slow :roll: ) "Value" to whom?

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

Ok. here's the deal.

There's a woman X with child.

Scenario 1:

X removes a painful tooth. X gives birth to the baby

X did something to her tooth. Nothing happened to the baby

Doing something to her tooth doesn't mean Doing something to the baby.

In other words, X can do something to the tooth & X can have a baby.

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

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).

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.

Ergo, To do something to the fetus implies to do something to the baby.

That means,

Not to do something to the baby implies not to do something to the fetus.

Simple!

Value to whom? — 180 Proof

Value to itself and others.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/564879



"To others?" – to whom?

And what does "value in itself" even mean?

"To others?" – to whom?

And what does "value in itself" even mean? — 180 Proof

A value of a seed is to be found in its potential - what it is (a seed) is important of course but not as important as what it can be (say, a tree). This value is part of the seed itself - it, in a sense, defines a seed, gives it meaning as it were. We, the "others", recognize this value and this makes the seed valuable to us to the extent we need the seed to achieve an end (plant one in your compound).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/564879

You're not making sense. A seed (1) is a potential sapling (2). An unviable fetus (1) is a potential viable fetus aka "baby" (2). A sapling (3) is a potential tree (4). A viable fetus (3) aka "baby" is a potential person (4). Skipping steps (3, 4) makes no sense.

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

Nothing happened to the baby, there is no baby to begin with. It's like if you said the present king of France is sleeping: it's not the case that he is sleeping, because he doesn't exist to begin with.

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

So?

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

No, this is the same non-sequitur/ straw man as before.

Ergo, To do something to the fetus implies to do something to the baby. — TheMadFool

...and to do something to the seed implies to do something to the tree that the seed could become (do you really not see the problem with this?)

Not to do something to the baby implies not to do something to the fetus. — TheMadFool

False, that's like saying: not to do something to the tree implies not to do something to the seed. But obviously just because I don't put the tree in my palm (because the tree doesn't exist to begin with), that doesn't mean that I can't put the seed in my palm.

Nothing happened to the baby, there is no baby to begin with. — Amalac

Scenario 1:
Fetus. Did nothing. Actual baby born

Scenario 2:
Fetus. Aborted the fetus. No actual baby born

Nothing happened to the actual baby? :chin: :brow:

Suppose all this happens when the fetus is, say, 2 weeks old.

Then in scenario 1, if you do nothing to the fetus, then at that moment nothing happened to the actual baby, because there is no actual baby.

In scenario 2, if you abort the fetus, then at that moment nothing happened to the actual baby, because there is no actual baby.

In both scenarios, things happen only to the fetus. That's why the only way to make sense of that argument is to say that the fetus and the baby are the exact same thing, which is to say: that potentiality and actuality are the same thing, which is obviously absurd.

Also, emoticons are not a way to avoid justifying why, according to you, something would happen to the actual baby (which does not exist) in either of those scenarios.

You failed to answer the question implicit in the scenarios I presented.

Scenario 1:

Nothing done to fetus. Crying, wet and pouting lips searching for the mother's breast for milk. In other words, actual baby

Nothing was done to the baby. The baby's right there, you can feel it, smell it, hear it, see it, kiss it and so on.

Scenario 2:

Fetus aborted. No crying, no wetness, no pouting, in short no actual baby

If nothing was done to the actual baby where is the baby?

I did nothing to the cookie implies the cookie is still there.

I threw the cookie in the trash implies the cookie is not there.