Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 3:04 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 2:54 pm Not so. The argument that the mother already had her time and should be the one to die rather than the fetus, cannot merely be shrugged off.

It certainly should not be shrugged off. If such an argument is presented to the mother, she should assault the source of it with whatever blunt instrument is at hand.

The name checks out though. It seems he currently advocates on behalf of Beelzebub.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 1:08 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 10:49 pmBut that “baby in your womb”, though not a part of you, is your “baby”.

Yep. My 16 year old is mine. Now, do you think I mean this as he is my possession, or he is my responsibility?

It isn’t independent, that’s for sure.

No more or less than I'll be as a very old, bed-ridden, man.

And it doesn’t belong to someone other than the woman who supports it.

Before I comment on this segment, I need to know which you think I mean: he is my possession, or he is my responsibility?

This is a difficult one to answer, my friend. Let me ponder “out loud” right here.

Possession and responsibility are clearly distinct from each other, so I should be able to decide which one I was talking about. I think I actually conflated the two terms, probably because if you possess something you are responsible for it. But not vice versa.

It’s clear to me that no human being should ever own another human being. This brings us to when is a fertilized egg a human.
That’s debatable, but my take is that the fetus is a potential human being until it is independent of vital support from the woman carrying it. Obviously, if I felt otherwise it would affect all of my statements about abortion.

I would say, according to the same thoughts about being dependent for life support, except possibly for financial support, your son is an independent human being and certainly not one who is owned by anyone other than his family, in usual circumstances.

Likewise, if you, as an older gomer, are on a vent with tube feedings, you have lost much of your humanity. On the other hand, if you are incontinent of stool, but are able to change your diaper without assistance. I would say you have lost a degree of your humanity but are still an independent person.

It doesn’t feel right to say so, but a fetus is like a wart. It is attached, it depends on its host, but it is not a part of the host. In this sense, the wart certainly doesn’t belong to anyone other than its host, and the host, if anyone, has the responsibility to get a treatment for the wart.

But back to the question of possession v. possession plus responsibility v. responsibility, it would best be said that I meant to treat the 2 terms as conjoined. This means, logically, I’m saying that a fetus is a possession that isn’t yet an actual human but rather a potential person with potential rights and whose mother has active rights.

But what I say logically doesn’t feel right emotionally.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 1:08 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 10:49 pmBut that “baby in your womb”, though not a part of you, is your “baby”.

Yep. My 16 year old is mine. Now, do you think I mean this as he is my possession, or he is my responsibility?

I think actually cs should have stuck with 'part of you.' If your 16 year old was connected to you by an umbilical cord and inside you and received oxygen and all nutrients through this and then waste products from his blood went into your blood and you got rid of them, your 16 year old would be a part of you. Genetic information is crossing between the foetus inside the mother in both directions. That also is not happening with your son. It was you choosing when and what to eat and he was inside you, I think we can even consider taking out the pronouns specially given to the foetus. The mother's heart and the fetal function like a unit - and while babies heart often synchronize, this is when they are together in the same space and with contact. Of course a new born isn't doing very much in terms of actions, but it is decidedly a separate agent. It suckles, looks toward faces, reacts to theses, swallows, digests, excretes (man do they excrete) no longer exchanges genetic information with the mother, is no longer inside her, is no longer sharing a physiology'. There are even cells that migrate between the fetus and mother. Whole cells. And stay in the other. They don't just get chewed up by the immune systems.

So the differences between the foetus and your son
Foetus
- inside mother
- mingled physiology
- lacks even minimal agency

While there is not a 100% difference there is a set of qualitative differences. I don't think of possessing my spleen, it's a part of me.
In some very significant way the feotus is a part of the mother.
And if she ate terribly, for example, and had a miscarriage, it would be absurd to charge her with manslaughter.

In my opinion:

Setting beside the possibilities of the future and the interests of family / society,
an early fetus is far less sophisticated and demanding of our ethical consideration on it's own merit,
than a fully formed insect - let alone highly sentient non-human animals capable of complex/valuable lives.

Before a certain point in pregnancy, we should ensure people have the tools available to recognize pregnancy,
prevent unwanted pregnancy, and alternatives if one does become pregnant (including abortion).
As an early fetus is only cells with no expectation of sentience.
The early fetus is only a potential being, and ought not be held in equal footing as the actual being involved - the pregnant person.

But once a certain point is reached, there's an undeniable life who ethically demands our attention.
I think there should be lines drawn where committing to a pregnancy past this point,
should be like signing a legally binding contract - a huge responsibility.

After this point, if the parent-to-be does not want to be pregnant, then the hypothetical legally binding contract may state
they are compelled by law to engage in activities to induce labor or caesarean section.
As the expectation would be, the child could survive outside the body of the parent-to-be.

Of course there many reasons, especially medical, why late term abortion can be justified.
And in the interests of the parent's health, there should be avenues for this to take place.
But if there isn't a medical reason shown by doctors [if there is, then lots of red tape could be skipped],
then I feel like there should be some legal process that one must take to make the case for late term abortion.

I don't think many make the case for killing an 8 month of fetus.
There must be a point where a fetus demands defense for it's welfare.
Where actions to kill the fetus at this point, is considered an injustice to the fetus.
Where this point is, doesn't seem to have a clear answer.

Though questions of sentience, quality of life and capacity to survive with medical intervention are really important.

--

Basically, I think we should really emphasize personal responsibility and care around contraception.
Early abortion seems nearly on par with sexual abstinence in respect to denying potential life -
i.e. both reduce possibility of life, yet to deny one's rights to either unjustly impacts personal freedom.

Yet I think there must be limits to abortion,
where a parent-to-be's right to cause the death of the fetus ends.
Where it becomes not only a personal issue, but a social issue.

Where society says, we expect you to justify this action -
we wont freely allow you to do so.

Early intervention is the key, and the longer you leave it, the messier the situation gets.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 1:08 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 10:49 pmBut that “baby in your womb”, though not a part of you, is your “baby”.

Yep. My 16 year old is mine. Now, do you think I mean this as he is my possession, or he is my responsibility?

'you', "henry quirk", are the ONLY one that KNOWS what the answer is here. So, how about 'you' tell 'us'?

After 'you' do that what about the REST of what 'you' CLAIM are 'yours'? Are they 'your' possession, or 'your' responsibility?

And, if 'you', "henry quirk", had NOT been such a COWARD and RUN AWAY and HID here, then we could ACTUALLY PROGRESS ONTO what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here, EXACTLY.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 1:08 am

It isn’t independent, that’s for sure.

No more or less than I'll be as a very old, bed-ridden, man.

And it doesn’t belong to someone other than the woman who supports it.

Before I comment on this segment, I need to know which you think I mean: he is my possession, or he is my responsibility?

LOL Asking the "other" what one THINKS one means is just ANOTHER ABSURD and RIDICULOUS WAY these so-called "adults" would 'TRY TO' ARGUE and FIGHT FOR the POSITION that they BELIEVED was true and Truly did NOT want to LET GO of.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 3:04 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 2:54 pm Not so. The argument that the mother already had her time and should be the one to die rather than the fetus, cannot merely be shrugged off.

It certainly should not be shrugged off. If such an argument is presented to the mother, she should assault the source of it with whatever blunt instrument is at hand.

Have 'you' NEVER heard of the saying, 'having MORE to live for'?

If yes, or no, now think about this LITERALLY.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am In my opinion:

Setting beside the possibilities of the future and the interests of family / society,
an early fetus is far less sophisticated and demanding of our ethical consideration on it's own merit,
than a fully formed insect - let alone highly sentient non-human animals capable of complex/valuable lives.

Before a certain point in pregnancy, we should ensure people have the tools available to recognize pregnancy,
prevent unwanted pregnancy, and alternatives if one does become pregnant (including abortion).
As an early fetus is only cells with no expectation of sentience.

WHEN, EXACTLY, does 'sentience' BEGIN?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am The early fetus is only a potential being, and ought not be held in equal footing as the actual being involved - the pregnant person.

WHAT, EXACTLY, is a 'being'?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am But once a certain point is reached, there's an undeniable life who ethically demands our attention.

WHAT is THAT 'certain point', EXACTLY?

And, what DIFFERENTIATES THAT 'point' from BEFORE?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am I think there should be lines drawn where committing to a pregnancy past this point,

Like WHAT, for example?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am should be like signing a legally binding contract - a huge responsibility.

So, two human beings HAVING sex is like there is NO responsibility AT ALL?

Or, if there is SOME, then WHY NOT a HUGE responsibility?

Also, WHY are 'you', adult human beings, NOT TAKING HUGE responsibility for absolutely EVERY thing 'you' DO anyway?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am After this point, if the parent-to-be does not want to be pregnant, then the hypothetical legally binding contract may state
they are compelled by law to engage in activities to induce labor or caesarean section.

Do ANY human being REALLY think that ADDING MORE and MORE laws ONTO ALREADY MANY, MANY laws REALLY HELPS?

It is like 'you', adult human beings, REALLY think or EXPECT "others" should be DOING what 'you', individually, think or BELIEVE is right. Which is Truly LAUGHABLE to WATCH and OBSERVE, from HERE.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am As the expectation would be, the child could survive outside the body of the parent-to-be.

Of course there many reasons, especially medical, why late term abortion can be justified.

REALLY?

Will you list just SOME of these CLAIMED MANY reasons?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am And in the interests of the parent's health, there should be avenues for this to take place.
But if there isn't a medical reason shown by doctors [if there is, then lots of red tape could be skipped],
then I feel like there should be some legal process that one must take to make the case for late term abortion.

And, what 'you' 'FEEL' in Life, the REST of 'us' SHOULD FOLLOW and ADHERE TO, right?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am I don't think many make the case for killing an 8 month of fetus.

HOW MANY make 'the case' for KILLING a 1 month old fetus?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am There must be a point where a fetus demands defense for it's welfare.

Oh, so 'things' HAVE TO DEMAND 'defense' for their welfare BEFORE it is ALL RIGHT for them to HAVE ANY 'welfare', correct?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am Where actions to kill the fetus at this point, is considered an injustice to the fetus.

To WHO, 'you'?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am Where this point is, doesn't seem to have a clear answer.

SO WHY even mention 'it'?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am Though questions of sentience, quality of life and capacity to survive with medical intervention are really important.

To WHO, EXACTLY?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am --

Basically, I think we should really emphasize personal responsibility and care around contraception.

What does this even MEAN and ENTAIL, EXACTLY?

What happens if ones 'personal responsibility' around 'contraception' DIFFERS from 'your' 'personal responsibility' around 'contraception'?

WHO then do I FOLLOW? 'yours' OR 'theirs'?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am Early abortion seems nearly on par with sexual abstinence in respect to denying potential life -
i.e. both reduce possibility of life, yet to deny one's rights to either unjustly impacts personal freedom.

What do 'you' CLASS 'unjustly' in relation to, EXACTLY?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am Yet I think there must be limits to abortion,

A LOT of people think a LOT of things.

But this, by itself, does NOT mean that there is ANY logic around what is being 'thought'.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am where a parent-to-be's right to cause the death of the fetus ends.
Where it becomes not only a personal issue, but a social issue.

How, EXACTLY, is one choosing to have an abortion a so-called 'social issue', EXACTLY?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am Where society says, we expect you to justify this action -
we wont freely allow you to do so.

So, you are just talking about LAWS here.

What happens if and when a society says, 'we expect you to just abort', or 'we expect you to NOT have to justify when you want to abort', or what happens with the OTHER countless OTHER rules or laws that could be MADE UP, and become ENFORCEABLE?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:45 am Early intervention is the key, and the longer you leave it, the messier the situation gets.

This applies to just about ALL of the MESS that 'you', adult human beings, HAVE created in Life.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:55 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 3:04 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 2:54 pm Not so. The argument that the mother already had her time and should be the one to die rather than the fetus, cannot merely be shrugged off.

It certainly should not be shrugged off. If such an argument is presented to the mother, she should assault the source of it with whatever blunt instrument is at hand.

Have 'you' NEVER heard of the saying, 'having MORE to live for'?

If yes, or no, now think about this LITERALLY.

I don't know what you mean, Age.

I'm happy to leave it at that, but if you pursue the issue please include an explanation of what your above comments mean, and preferably in a form of language that an average human being can understand.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:19 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:55 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 3:04 pm

It certainly should not be shrugged off. If such an argument is presented to the mother, she should assault the source of it with whatever blunt instrument is at hand.

Have 'you' NEVER heard of the saying, 'having MORE to live for'?

If yes, or no, now think about this LITERALLY.

I don't know what you mean, Age.

I'm happy to leave it at that, but if you pursue the issue please include an explanation of what your above comments mean, and preferably in a form of language that an average human being can understand.

But if you are 'happy' to leave 'this' where 'it' is now for you, then I would NOT want to do ANY thing to upset this 'happiness' of 'yours' now.

But if ANY one else does NOT know what I mean here, and is INTERESTED in LEARNING what I ACTUALLY MEAN, then just ask away. I am MORE THAN HAPPY to EXPLAIN things FURTHER here.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 1:15 pm
But if you are 'happy' to leave 'this' where 'it' is now for you, then I would NOT want to do ANY thing to upset this 'happiness' of 'yours' now.

Oh, Age, that's so sweet of you.

I'm time-pressed and not doin' anyone any favors with short answers (or, in your case, questions) across multiple threads. But I don't wanna go too long without answering everyone, including you (fuller answers may come when my fires are tamped down)...

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 8:34 pmIt’s clear to me that no human being should ever own another human being.

Why?

It doesn’t feel right to say so, but a fetus is like a wart.

Why?

But what I say logically doesn’t feel right emotionally.

Why?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:41 amI think actually cs should have stuck with 'part of you.'

Mother and child are genetically dissimilar. Complicated mechanisms prevent the mother's body from rejecting the child's body. The child is inside Mom, certainly is dependent on mom, but is not part of her in same way her heart or liver is part of her.

And unlike her heart and liver, the child, if left alone in the womb, will naturally vacate the premises. It's not meant to stay there.

(again, I'm time-pressed...I'm doin' you an injustice with this response)

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 5:53 pm (again, I'm time-pressed...I'm doin' you an injustice with this response)

I'm sure he understands, henry. And you can always do him a more thorough injustice when you are not so pressed for time.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:23 am A subject that is pronounced on after people have already decided what kind of ethical society they support.
It also attracts absolutist statements such as the present report that the USA is banning abortion.
The USA may well leave it to the individual states to decide on policy, but that may simply cause women to take advantage of liberal law in an adjoining state - which obviates the whole purpose.
In any case every society or country or state must decide on its fundamental ethic, controlling legislation.
An extreme authoritarian society has no debatable ethic, and merely goes by the 'book' or by the will of a demagogue.
A 'anarchistic' society or state based on outright individual autonomy [egalitarian too] will do as many in the USA wish and let women get pregnant at a whim and get abortions at a whim [their own moral vanity].
A society or state that is in generalized terms an altruist democracy, will have an ethic that binds women. But it will be constantly discussed and amended as maybe to suit current wisdom and conditions. There can be no doubt that abortion would remain permissible and essential to save life, where life is in danger. Beyond that, action being based on the fetus having increasing rights to life as it develops in the womb.

This has always been a topic of some tension and I have little time for those who can see no creditability to the opposing side. The overthrow of Row V wade however has an interesting unstated motivation which has given the far right the energy and motivation to go to extremes to take the civil rights gained through Row V wade away from women. This motivation isn't all virtuous. In America, indeed in North America in general the white population is not replacing themselves and the national population of white people is going down. This is causing the right wing to go into hyperventilation as they breathe into their paper bags. It is not a secret that if things continue the way they have been going population-wise, white people will no longer be the majority population in America, and white privilege will be a thing of the past. This in my opinion has turned the Republican party into a fascist party which is quickly re-institutionalizing racism and hatred. Forcing women to have more babies is not going to work for two reasons, first women are going to demand the right to control their own reproductive lives and second globally white people are a minority and black and brown women in America are having babies at a greater rate.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 5:42 pm I'm time-pressed and not doin' anyone any favors with short answers (or, in your case, questions) across multiple threads. But I don't wanna go too long without answering everyone, including you (fuller answers may come when my fires are tamped down)...

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 8:34 pmIt’s clear to me that no human being should ever own another human being.

Why?

It doesn’t feel right to say so, but a fetus is like a wart.

Why?

But what I say logically doesn’t feel right emotionally.

Why?

Why—slavery bad.

Why—it’s true, but a rather crass analogy.

Why—it follows logically, but it feels sickening to me in view of an abortion I observed as a student. Likewise it sickens me that I killed an enemy soldier. It’s called for in wartime, but distasteful nonetheless.

It would be fair to say that I’m torn between reason and emotion.