This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

There is a clear difference in this thread - and elsewhere - in the language used by folks. — tim wood

But what's the justification for this? At what point does a foetus become a baby, and what's the relationship responsible for making the difference?

and mothers are dying that shouldn't — tim wood

Could you give an example or point to statistics?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Are suggesting there is no difference? — tim wood

My claim is that people who insist on using the term foetus instead of baby can't point out what the substantive difference is, and that they use the term to suggest there is one. A human foetus and a human baby are both human individuals.

why don't you try a list of them and see just how long it is. I thought Roe v. Wade was good law. Three divisions of nine months: first, abortion ok, second, maybe ok, third, probably not ok. — tim wood

A given law in a given country existing at a given time doesn't determine what the substantive difference between a foetus and a baby might be. Roe v. Wade didn't dictate reality.

In ignoring difference — tim wood

I don't think it has been demonstrated.

Could you give an example or point to statistics? — Hallucinogen

No — tim wood

OK, so you can't give a single example of a mother dying unnecessarily as a result of lack of access to abortion, even though you claimed that is happening. When you make claims, you need to have a source ready. If it is easy to find on the news, you should be able to give an example.

Three divisions of nine months: first, abortion ok, second, maybe ok, third, probably not ok. — tim wood

That's a very good starting-point for developing policy. But, of course, those are lines drawn in a continuous developmental process. The argument against abortion is essentially an argument against the ethical significance of those lines, so they are swept away by a blizzard of slogans and absolutism. Pity.

Can we get some perspective by considering a related but different issue? The idea that contraception is wrong. The abortion argument seems to draw a line at the point of fertilization of the egg and there is a point to that. Still, there are people (some of whom I respect) who believe that that line is not ethically significant. It is true that the causal process does not begin at that point, but is arrived at by means of a causal process which is initiated by the sex act.

There are ethical and legal restrictions on the sex act. So now I want to ask why if it is thought to be so vitally important not to interfere with the development of a foetus/baby/child, it is thought to be ethically acceptable to interfere in any way with the sex act.

Once one has decided that it is ethically important to regulate the sex act, it seems to me that there is no good reason to reject interference with the process at any later stage, until the foetus/baby/child becomes sentient, and even then, when situations arise in which life and welfare
of the baby and mother are in danger and choices have to be made, there is no good reason to prioritize the life of the baby over that of the mother.

My claim is that people who insist on using the term foetus instead of baby can't point out what the substantive difference is, and that they use the term to suggest there is one. A human foetus and a human baby are both human individuals. — Hallucinogen

This is a non-issue. A human foetus and a human baby are the same individuals being described in different ways. The difference is the ethical attitudes embedded in the description. It is pointless to fuss about which description is being applied when what is at stake is the ethical attitudes embedded in the descriptions.
I would argue that there is a significant difference between the descriptions "baby" and "child", although it gets severely eroded in common use. A child is a baby who has grown up somewhat, probably to the point where they can walk and talk. However, there are somewhat different ethical attitudes embedded in those descriptions as well.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I thought Roe v. Wade was good law. Three divisions of nine months: first, abortion ok, second, maybe ok, third, probably not ok. — tim wood

I remember how surprised I was when finding out that back then countries like Sweden and Finland had far more tighter regulation on abortion than the US.

The discussion should be about the exact details, not this old juxtaposition to being "pro-life" or "pro-choice". It doesn't go so that if you are "pro-life", then you are for abortion laws like in Madagascar, where abortion is illegal in all cases, including rape, incest and the mother’s life being endangered. Or that with pro-choice that you think it's totally OK to dispose of a fetus as long as the naval cord is tied to the mother.

Of course the real effect with doing away with Roe v. Wade is that abortions have increased.

With this I disagree. They are different things, their differences being in part recognized by differences in description. One may become the other - but being and becoming very different, yes? — tim wood

I must be missing something. What are the differences that need to be recognized?

Though I suspect that the terms may be being used, shall we say, more flexibly, because "baby" is more emotionally appealing than "foetus".

The same may apply to "egg" and "sperm", which may help to explain explain why they are less protected than babies.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

To start with, that they are not the same thing, ergo different; and different, ergo not the same thing. — tim wood

Very true. All I asked was what the differences are that make the difference. I didn't think that was a particularly vicious question. Let me try again.

Foetus - An unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal.

Baby 1. A very young child; an infant. 2. An unborn child; a fetus. 3. The youngest member of a family or group.

These are dictionary definitions and not particularly authoritative. However, I have the impression that they are an acceptable starting-point for discussion. So can you please explain where they are wrong?

You're just playing games with words, and since I don't reckon that you're actually playing, I must assume you're serious, which makes you vicious. Just exactly as I would be if I mislabled you for nefarious purposes of my own. — tim wood

I don't disagree with you. But it's not quite the whole story. I do think that the labelling of - let's say - an unborn baby as a foetus or a baby is part of the very serious business of debating the issue. I also think that in this context, it is vicious, or at best irrelevant. That was my point.
The emotional overtones of "foetus" and "baby" are very different and are being used to gain rhetorical advantage in the debate. Participants in the debate are indeed playing games with words.
(Not that the proper use of "foetus" in clinical and research contexts is vicious.)
You must forgive me if I made the point in a way that misled you. .

No. It depends on your standpoint on the status of a fetus. We are only charged with murder if we kill a human being. If a fetus is a human being, then it's murder.

What you said above contradicts what you've said earlier.

I think consistency is important.

In the USA, we are not only charged for murder if kill a human being. Besides the degrees of murder, someone can also be charged with manslaughter, criminally accidental homicide, or not be charged at all. Someone can kill a human being, themselves, and not get charged with murder. Someone can kill a human being in self-defense and not get charged with murder. Someone can medically kill a human being, "pulling the plug," and not get charged for murder. Someone can kill a human being by accident, accidental homicide, and not get charged for murder.

So, regardless of whether or not some considers a fetus as a human being, causing the death of a fetus isn't necessarily murder.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I didn't say any time we kill a human, we get charged with murder. And I gave examples of times we kill a human and do not get charged with murder.

What I meant is that the only thing that gets a charge of murder is killing a human. Not killing anything else, or even a million something elses.

The debate has constrained usage and most dictionaries are sometimes not helpful in understanding all usages. — tim wood

If I was a dictator - which God forbid! - I would legislate that a foetus is a foetus until live birth occurs, after which it is a baby.

I don't know the details about Roe v Wade, but from what I've seen, it is certainly a good start.

I agree with what you said, barring nit-picking details.

Above I asked you if you thought a caterpillar is a butterfly. Or even if the contents of an egg are a chicken. Pro-lifers seem to think they are, which given that they are not, is an example of what I call vicious. — tim wood

I thought they were trick questions, so didn't answer. I would be an idiot to answer either yes or no.

A caterpillar is not just a caterpillar, but a future butterfly. It should be treated as such. Ditto the contents of an egg.

A foetus is not just a lump, but a future person (even if it has died). (There's been some conflict about that between parents and doctors.) This creates a complicated situation. Of course the mother has a predominant interest, and, as a living person, prior rights. But society also has a reasonable interest and perhaps the father too.

This is a non-issue. A human foetus and a human baby are the same individuals being described in different ways. — Ludwig V

When you say it's a "non-issue", do you mean we're in agreement that a human foetus and a human baby are the same thing, despite the different terms used?

when what is at stake is the ethical attitudes embedded in the descriptions. — Ludwig V

A person's ethical attitudes ought to be based on reasoning, just as their descriptions ought to be. The descriptions don't justify their ethical attitudes, their reasoning does.

You apparently have no knowledge of what a fetus is in any sense that justifies the use of the term. As to differences, here are just two of many. inside/outside, viable/not-viable - and they're all substantive differences — tim wood

OK, so now that you're saying that inside/outside and viable/not-viable are the substantive differences between foetus and baby here, am I to understand then that you're saying it's OK to abort a foetus because it is inside the womb, or that it's morally OK to abort a foetus because it isn't viable?

If the answer is yes to either of those, then I'm going to ask you why you think that a foetus going from inside a womb to outside the womb makes the difference between it being morally permissible to kill it to killing it not being morally permissible. The same goes for the foetus going from not viable to viable.

Not cant, won't. It's there for you to find, and that not difficult at all. And for you to take take the won't as can't simply says you're only concerned with your beliefs — tim wood

Well there's something called the burden of proof. If you're claiming that something is true, you ought to be able to provide evidence that it is true on your own, especially if you're telling me it's easy. Otherwise, your refusal to cooperate is indistinguishable from you having no basis for what you claimed to be true.

When you say it's a "non-issue", do you mean we're in agreement that a human foetus and a human baby are the same thing, despite the different terms usYeed? — Hallucinogen

Yes.

A person's ethical attitudes ought to be based on reasoning, just as their descriptions ought to be. The descriptions don't justify their ethical attitudes, their reasoning does. — Hallucinogen

Yes. But these descriptions involve both facts and values, and that makes for an argument in which it is easy to get confused.

Why is the bodily autonomy of the baby irrelevant? They're just as much a human individual as the mother is. — Hallucinogen

The common argument here is that bodily autonomy is a defensive right - you have the right to refuse interference with your body, but you don't have a right to a specific treatment. And in case of a pregnancy, the fetus/baby is "using" the body of the mother, hence her bodily autonomy takes precedence.

At which developmental stage does a foetus become conscious, and what reasoning have you used to arrived at that conclusion? — Hallucinogen

Evidence seems to suggest humans become conscious, in the sense of being aware of themselves and their own awareness, only some time after birth. Plausibly, it may only develop alongside the ability to interact with the environment.

If the answer is yes to either of those, then I'm going to ask you why you think that a foetus going from inside a womb to outside the womb makes the difference between it being morally permissible to kill it to killing it not being morally permissible. — Hallucinogen

Well one argument is that only once a baby is actually born that it can really separate from the mother and be it's own person. Both physically and mentally. I don't think anyone claims something magic happens at the point of birth but matter-of-factly a new human being needs to acquire certain basic capabilities in order to become an individual, and being born and capable of surviving outside the womb is certainly a prerequisite.

I don't think any system of moral philosophy can have a completely internal and consistent definition of who is a subject to which the system applies. Some interpretation of facts is always going to be necessary. This applies to chimpanzees or Dolphins but also to human babies or humans with severe brain damage. At some point you're going to have to "eyeball" the solution.

A lot of this discussion is morally based, but there is, I think, another side to it. Practically, as a species, it makes little to no sense to allow any abortions (obviously there are special cases).

At least some moral element must be introduced for a practical law; banned abortion also means additional suffering for many individuals who had no choice in the matter, and so at least some limited abortion must exist.

Another thing is that if you delve too deep into the moral side of it you begin to realize that the suffering of even a conscious fetus being aborted is nothing compared to the experiences of a life. From that standpoint, maybe not even viewing a fetus as a person who can be murdered but as an individual with a potential to live, it seems like the worst kind of crime to purposefully prevent that individual the chance of a life.

I’m sure that this issue, although major, is somewhat temporary, as no doubt an issue with such political traction will at some point experience technological development making more and more premature and less uncomfortable delivery methods possible. I look forward to that.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

it's morally OK to abort a foetus because it isn't viable? — Hallucinogen

It is.

it seems like the worst kind of crime to purposefully prevent that individual the chance of a life. — Igitur

It really, truly does not seem like anything of any note. This would be the same as pretending "every sperm is sacred" . Preventing a potential is the same as allowing a potential. It is prior to the issue.

to become an individual — Echarmion

I think this matters, and is not quite as frivolous as many like to assert. Obviously, moments before birth would present moral issues, but if this is based on average viability it becomes as workable policy driver, at the least. There will always be people uncomfortable with where the line is drawn. I don't think we need to care too much. It certainly doesn't strike me as something that needs to be accounted for as between differing views. Just something we live with, unless we have some absolute moral compass (religious, for example).

A lot of this discussion is morally based, but there is, I think, another side to it. Practically, as a species, it makes little to no sense to allow any abortions (obviously there are special cases). — Igitur

Given that you state in your next paragraph:

banned abortion also means additional suffering for many individuals who had no choice in the matter, and so at least some limited abortion must exist. — Igitur

It seems like you do see the practical reason. Indeed all the hard evidence we have seems to suggest that access to legal and safe abortions has significant positive effects.

I can understand the moral position of someone who thinks that abortion is murder. But, as a practical matter, I don't think it's reasonable to claim that no access to abortion would make the world a better place. Who benefits from such a policy? The unborn? But then why do "potential" people have a say at all?

From that standpoint, maybe not even viewing a fetus as a person who can be murdered but as an individual with a potential to live, it seems like the worst kind of crime to purposefully prevent that individual the chance of a life. — Igitur

I find this a strange contention. The "chance of life" is not attached to any moral subject. Causal chains don't have rights, do they?

But the point is that there is not any such thing. — tim wood

I'm surprised that you think that is a point so obvious and simple that one can simply remind me of it and pass on. There are profoundly different views at stake here. The view that you are expressing here is, on my reading of it, a kind of atomism that posits a world consisting of entities each of which exists in its own right, independently of all the other entities in the world. Everything is what it is, and not another thing. This view works quite well in many contexts, but sometimes does not work at all well.

You can insist that a caterpillar is not a butterfly. I shall insist that a caterpillar is not yet a butterfly. I am thinking of the state of being a caterpillar (or a chrysalis or a butterfly) as a stage in a life-cycle. Because the changes in this life-cycle are so dramatic, we apply different terms to the stages. But we include our understanding of each stage in the concept - the way we think about - each term. We call this the life-cycle of the butterfly, choosing the final stage to identify the life-cycle, which is somewhat arbitrary, but not incomprehensible. This is why there is so much argument about abortion.

The common argument here is that bodily autonomy is a defensive right - you have the right to refuse interference with your body, but you don't have a right to a specific treatment. And in case of a pregnancy, the fetus/baby is "using" the body of the mother, hence her bodily autonomy takes precedence. — Echarmion

I hate this argument. I would think that a mother who thinks like that about her unborn baby is likely to think like that about baby/child and that will not be a good thing for either child or eventual adult. Perhaps one might one posit a radical change of heart. But in fact it amounts to occupying the opposition's ground and turning it against them. It high-lights how inappropriate it is to think of a foetus as a small person as opposed to a future person.

You can insist that a caterpillar is not a butterfly. I shall insist that a caterpillar is not yet a butterfly. I am thinking of the state of being a caterpillar (or a chrysalis or a butterfly) as a stage in a life-cycle. Because the changes in this life-cycle are so dramatic, we apply different terms to the stages. But we include our understanding of each stage in the concept - the way we think about - each term. We call this the life-cycle of the butterfly, choosing the final stage to identify the life-cycle, which is somewhat arbitrary, but not incomprehensible. This is why there is so much argument about abortion. — Ludwig V

I think using the caterpillar and butterfly analogy is incorrect, I think a better one would be a seed planted in a garden. The life cycle of a seed starts at germination, where it starts to take in moisture and sprout, if you were to compare it to a foetus it would be the stage where the egg is fertilized and it starts to divide.

I think the analogy works not only with the similarities but also how we view a "seed". If you knew that the seed you planted was going to grow over your favourite plant, blocking the sunlight and killing it. you would remove the seed because the seed is a lot less valuable then your favourite plant.

It really, truly does not seem like anything of any note. This would be the same as pretending "every sperm is sacred" . Preventing a potential is the same as allowing a potential. It is prior to the issue. — AmadeusD

The difference is the probability. Killing one sperm isn’t really going to affect the chances of a successful pregnancy and birth. Killing a fetus is massively more likely to have prevented a life.

It's about the moral implications of the practical view of the potential of a fetus, specifically. Not about holding the value of the fetus or sperm up to a human life by rote.

I don't think it's reasonable to claim that no access to abortion would make the world a better place. Who benefits from such a policy? The unborn? But then why do "potential" people have a say at all? — Echarmion

This point (while valid to a large degree) is fully though the point of view of someone already living in this world. It's one argument to say that more humans limit the quality of life of existing humans, and a whole other to say that because of this it's good to prevent new people being born. It's not that they have a say (as they don't), it's that we can still (obviously) measure the pros and cons of the unborn being aborted versus continuing normally.

Currently we have a lot of social and political issues limiting reform at this level, or just making them not worth it. That's why this argument in particular is more about the practical philosophy of limiting abortions and not a moral call to do so now.

Obviously I'm not calling for all abortions to be banned. I just think that in the future, we would do well to adhere to a policy of not aborting when not completely necessary (presuming a future that has improved upon the world today, which might be a stretch, but is also the only way I can see a future at all).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I think using the caterpillar and butterfly analogy is incorrect, I think a better one would be a seed planted in a garden. The life cycle of a seed starts at germination, where it starts to take in moisture and sprout, if you were to compare it to a foetus it would be the stage where the egg is fertilized and it starts to divide. — Samlw

I was talking about a certain kind of concept, so I didn't have an actual analogy in mind. Caterpillar and egg were examples rather than analogies. Yes, seeds vs plants are a better analogy.

Obviously I'm not calling for all abortions to be banned. I just think that in the future, we would do well to adhere to a policy of not aborting when not completely necessary (presuming a future that has improved upon the world today, which might be a stretch, but is also the only way I can see a future at all). — Igitur

There's plenty of room for debate about "not completely necessary".
I think we have to be careful about a policy in relation to decisions that ought to be made at an individual level. A policy of encouraging people to have children because the population is declining (or the reverse) is one thing - and actions to make the process (for or against) easier would not be objectionable. But laws compelling people in either direction are objectionable; people tend to resist them strongly anyway.

And he replies that it is not yet fixed, therefore it is fixed, and you should pay. — tim wood

You are confusing me with someone who is making that mistake. There are indeed important differences between the flood that has not yet happened and the flood that is happening now. But it is also important not to confuse the flood that has not yet happened with no flood happening.
I think this is just a question of language and emphasis - unless you can show me what hangs on it. I think that what hangs on this is that, just as one should not confuse a foetus with a child, one should not confuse a foetus with a parasite. A pregnant woman is not yet a mother, but her pregnancy is still important, ethically and in other ways.

There's plenty of room for debate about "not completely necessary".
I think we have to be careful about a policy in relation to decisions that ought to be made at an individual level. A policy of encouraging people to have children because the population is declining (or the reverse) is one thing - and actions to make the process (for or against) easier would not be objectionable. But laws compelling people in either direction are objectionable; people tend to resist them strongly anyway. — Ludwig V

Totally agree.