It seems necessary to point out that one does not need an account of the essence of personhood in order to realise that a fluid-filled sack of tissue can be removed without moral import.

It might have human tissue, but it is not a human. Nor is it a person. Nor does it have preferences .

Overwhelmingly this thread has focused on the foetus, without consideration of the person bearing it. What is at stake in the discussion of abortion is the dignity of the person who is to carry the foetus. Now unlike a blastocyst, there can be no doubt as to their humanity, their personhood.

This is why arguments as to the nature of humanity or personhood ought be sidelined. The needs and capabilities of the person are present and undeniable. Those of the blastocyst, in comparison, are minute.

Overwhelmingly this thread has focused on the foetus, without consideration of the person bearing it. What is at stake in the discussion of abortion is the dignity of the person who is to cary the foetus. Now unlike a blastocyst, there can be no doubt as to their humanity, their personhood. — Banno

That's where I end up in my thinking -- the personhood of a foetus is more in question than the personhood of the mother, and so the rights of personhood should favor the mother when considering which rights to favor.

Personhood is where I start, but in the end I don't think that you can defend the notion without a notion of ensoulment when it comes to the foetus. And, while that is a perfectly respectable position to live it's not good for law because not everyone believes in ensoulment, and the removal of a mole or cyst ought not be a moral conundrum from a materialist point of view.

...ensoulment... — Moliere

That's hardly going to be clearer than "humanity" or "personhood". The reference to Singer went mostly un-noted, but there is something to the idea that a woman has preferences while a cyst doesn't. I'd broaden that to include other capabilities had by a person but not by a foetus. The argument then is simply that the wellbeing of the woman had overwhelming precedence over that of the conceptus.

that a fluid-filled sack of tissue can be removed without moral import. — Banno

That's your moral proclamation. And so be it. It wont be so for many (potentially, the majority) of people. Let's just allow that a blastocyst is, in fact, contrary to the biological literature, a mere cyst. Some will still see this as more important, in direct comparison, than the wants and needs of an adult woman (or, lets make it more fun - a young teenager going through a forced pregnancy due to abuse). I do think your consistent use of 'cyst', whether symbolic, or sincerely held as apt, is causing you to jettison other moral positions as invalid rather than counter to your own. With that..

The argument then is simply that the wellbeing of the woman had overwhelming precedence over that of the conceptus. — Banno

Much better. MUCH better. And this seems to me both 'right' morally, and something which can be defended on any system but one of divinity because

woman has preferences while a cyst doesn't — Banno

doesn't matter to strict moral proclamations from on high, about hte sanctity of a fetus.

I don' think ensoulment, as a concept, can even be brought in here - it's a complete fantasy as regards looking at the facts.

Nor does it have preferences — Banno

All life demonstrates preferences.

All life demonstrates preferences. — frank

Ok, if that is so, should we prefer the preferences of a cyst to those of Amber Thurman?

Ok, if that is so, should we prefer the preferences of a cyst to those of Amber Thurman? — Banno

Why not?

Well, I think not. Thurman was "a Black 28-year-old mother to a young son who had dreams of becoming a nurse" who "died a painful, preventable death". A cyst is just a cyst.

But you can decide for yourself.

But you can decide for yourself. — Banno

Right. The preferences-angle is BS. People decide for their own reasons.

A cyst is just a cyst. — Banno

You know only part of the blastocyst becomes a fetus. The rest is a protective covering and the placenta.

Right. The preferences-angle is BS. People decide for their own reasons. — frank

An odd conclusion. That people make their own choices does not make those choices arbitrary. The preference angle can ground the choice between the woman and the cyst. Your choice as to which to preserve is about you. Which will you chose?

Yep.

The preference angle can ground the choice between the woman and the cyst. — Banno

Victor Frankl said that you can't compare one person's pain to another's. The pain in any being takes up all the available space.

The preference angle is just mumbo jumbo because for some odd reason one is resistant to saying "I value the mother's life over that of the fetus.". Just say it. You don't need to defend it. It's how you feel.

Likewise, your choice of calling it a cyst when I've already told you that most aborted material has a beating heart, is for what? Just call it a fetus. That's what it is.

If you want abortion to be legal, you'll have to get yourself some power. Logical arguments have zero to do with it. — frank

Norma McCorvey was a working-class woman and did not have significant financial resources.

The preference angle is just mumbo jumbo because for some odd reason one is resistant to saying "I value the mother's life over that of the fetus.". Just say it. You don't need to defend it. It's how you feel. — frank

If you like. I value the woman's life over that of the foetus because she is much more capable and interesting. Others value the foetus over the interests of the woman becasue of what they think their invisible friend thinks. The reason for analysing reasons is to track down inconsistencies and sources for those opinions. I also think that what someone else's invisible friend might say is irrelevant to the discussion.

So, which do you choose? Woman or cyst? And yes, I am obviously intentionally using extreme language, setting otu the extreme case, to show that folk who think abortion indefensible becasue of "ensolement" or some such are shown to value the cyst above the women. And as I have said, I think that morally bankrupt.

You know only part of the blastocyst becomes a fetus. The rest is a protective covering and the placenta. — frank

I wouldn't bother.

Others value the foetus over the interests of the woman becasue of what they think their invisible friend thinks. — Banno

This type of ignorance can't be reasoned with.

Thanks. Tell us more stuff about me,

You continuous need to center yourself has already been noted in subtext. There is simply no need :)

The reason for analysing reasons is to track down inconsistencies and sources for those opinions. — Banno

That's important to you. I get it. My attitude about it comes from an event where I was listening to a pro-choice spokesperson and it struck me that she was repeating the arguments Southerners made to defend slavery. We have a right, they aren't human...

I won't try to explain to you how that affected me, except to say that since then I've felt strongly that mutual respect and a willingness to listen are important. If you want others to listen to you, you have to be ready to do the same.

So, which do you choose? Woman or cyst? And yes, I am obviously intentionally using extreme language, — Banno

I choose the woman, and yes, your language indicates that you have no respect for the other side. I think that's unfortunate. I really do.

This type of ignorance can't be reasoned with. — AmadeusD

He's infuriating. It's by design.

We have a right, they aren't human... — frank

Ironically, you're comparing slaves (and centuries of suffering) to tiny bits of flesh that lack consciousness.

You continuous need to center yoursel — AmadeusD

My friend, it is you who are incessantly talking about me.

...you have no respect for the other side — frank

Well, not much. Yep. Their arguments hereabouts do not do much to build that respect.

He's infuriating. — frank

Thanks. One does what one can.

Ironically, you're comparing slaves (and centuries of suffering) to tiny bits of flesh that lack consciousness. — praxis

So, on your own argument, @frank, if we don't look to the wider picture but only our "feels", how are we to deal with disagreement? If you would rule out discourse, what would you rule in? But moreover, why?

On your own account, you can give no reason.

You would give moral recognition to slaves but not to blastocysts, but can't say why.

I find that quite odd.

So, on your own argument, frank, if we don't look to the wider picture but only our "feels", how are we to deal with disagreement? If you would rule out discourse, what would you rule in? But moreover, why? — Banno

What you're referring to as the "wider picture" is basically logic. How does logic have any force for you if you're a logical pluralist?

My friend, it is you who are incessantly talking about me. — Banno

Risible. As i said, your need is noted.

What you're referring to as the "wider picture" is basically logic. How does logic have any force for you if you're a logical pluralist? — frank

Well, no, not just logic. I'm "referencing" all the things that make a person more interesting and worthy of the "respect" you so value, in comparison to a conceptus.

We can use logic in examining the coherence and consistency of a group of claims. Nihilism, not pluralism, would deny this.

So far as your claim, you seem to think that reasons and arguments are irrelevant to moral decisions, that what counts is that "people decide for their own reasons", and that discussion of those reasons is BS.

So I'm puzzling as to why you are even here on a discussion. Are you trying to convince us that we ought not be having any discussions, by having a discussion?

Seems to me your position is self-defeating.

Now you can either show me how I have misunderstood you, or you can abuse me. Again, your choice.

So far as your claim, you seem to think that reasons and arguments are irrelevant to moral decisions, — Banno

Very much so. Your own morality isn't based on arguments. It comes from the way you feel.

Are you trying to convince us that we ought not be having any discussions, by having a discussion? — Banno

No. I'm pointing out that you're building arguments that no one will hear but your allies. Your opponents aren't going to hear you because there's no mutual respect.

Abortion is a moral issue. Pro-choice ought to start with that. Let it be known that you're ok with ending the life of a fetus. Have the guts to say it.

Your own morality isn't based on arguments. It comes from the way you feel. — frank

I agree. But with the caveat that what you feel is very much to do with what you think, hence what you think can change what you feel as much as what you feel changes what you think.

It's an interaction. Complex. Iterative. Human.

Your opponents aren't going to hear you because there's no mutual respect. — frank

I don't much give a fuck.

Have the guts to say it. — frank

You suppose I have qualms about such things? No. Kill the foetus.

All this talk about me is fun, but can we get back on topic?

All this talk about me is fun, but can we get back on topic? — Banno

I wasn't just talking about you. The pro-choice spokesperson said abortion is not a matter of morality, it's about the right to choose.

No, if someone is complaining that it's a moral issue, it's a moral issue. Meet them in that ground and tell them how you feel.

The pro-choice spokesperson said abortion is not a matter of morality, it's about the right to choose. — frank

That's muddled. Morality is about how we relate to each other, and comes in to play as soon as you expect me to do something for you, or you for me. So they were wrong.

Yep, abortion is a moral issue.

:up: :up:

The pro-choice spokesperson said abortion is not a matter of morality, it's about the right to choose. — frank

The right to choose isn’t a moral issue?

Abortion is a moral issue. ... Have the guts to say it. — frank

I don’t think the obvious needs to be stated.