The Philosophy Discussion Forum

When we can keep a fetus alive at only a month old, when the brain isn't working yet, what will that do to ethics?

artificial womb operators will have their own category of medical responsibility

-Imp

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:35 am When we can keep a fetus alive at only a month old, when the brain isn't working yet, what will that do to ethics?

Nothing. Abortionists have always known they're murdering babies. They'll just keep doing it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 4:42 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:35 am When we can keep a fetus alive at only a month old, when the brain isn't working yet, what will that do to ethics?

Nothing. Abortionists have always known they're murdering babies. They'll just keep doing it.

I think you are missing the point of the topic question, IC

We use the term abortion to mean removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman, which at the current state of the art,
means the fetus will die. With the topic question that would no longer be the case.

Abortion would then be removal of the fetus from woman A but that not causing the fetus to die. But would keeping alive be enough to satisfy you. Advocate did not include "and from that state would continue to develop normally".

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 9:05 pm Abortion would then be removal of the fetus from woman A but that not causing the fetus to die. But would keeping alive be enough to satisfy you.

I hadn't heard that the point of ethics was to "satisfy" somebody. That's an interesting way to imagine it.

Well, one thing for sure: it won't make most women more reluctant to murder the baby anyway. Part of the point of abortion is that not only does the woman get rid of it (which was always possible, through adoption), but that nobody else gets to keep their baby anyway. And they won't be more likely to opt for the adoption road, I would estimate. Abortion is not an unselfish act.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:51 am
Well, one thing for sure: it won't make most women more reluctant to murder the baby anyway. Part of the point of abortion is that not only does the woman get rid of it (which was always possible, through adoption), but that nobody else gets to keep their baby anyway. And they won't be more likely to opt for the adoption road, I would estimate. Abortion is not an unselfish act.

REPEAT -- discuss in terms of the premise. You are continuing to ignore the premises. << there is no fetus murder here, no baby not ending up somewhere/with someone >>

HOWEVER -- if you want a discussion on abortion as it is now, start a thread. IMHO there are issues to discuss (what is or isn't abortion -- example, the "morning after pill"

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 2:23 pm You are continuing to ignore the premises.

There is no restriction in the OP as to what the corollary of the statement must be and cannot be. And I feel free, thus, to respond as seems best. And I don't think you have any particular ability to define "the premises" to me. But if you've got something useful to say, go ahead.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 2:31 pm
There is no restriction in the OP as to what the corollary of the statement must be and cannot be. And I feel free, thus, to respond as seems best. And I don't think you have any particular ability to define "the premises" to me. But if you've got something useful to say, go ahead.

The premise was that the fetus could be removed from the woman WITHOUT KILLING IT (specific technology undefined -- artificial womb or implanted in another host ) So no killing of a fetus involved. THIS form of abortion not murder. It is not unusual in philosophy/ethics to discuss theoretical situations.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 5:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 2:31 pm
There is no restriction in the OP as to what the corollary of the statement must be and cannot be. And I feel free, thus, to respond as seems best. And I don't think you have any particular ability to define "the premises" to me. But if you've got something useful to say, go ahead.

The premise was that the fetus could be removed from the woman WITHOUT KILLING IT (specific technology undefined -- artificial womb or implanted in another host ) So no killing of a fetus involved.

And he asked if it would change anything about ethics. Abortion is a thing about ethics.

So we're right across the plate, ump.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 5:52 pm And he asked if it would change anything about ethics. Abortion is a thing about ethics.

So we're right across the plate, ump.

Well, doe4s it? You were saying abortion => murder. Murder involves death. Where is the death here? If THIS premise changed your position, say so. If it didn't change your position about abortion being wrong, say so. But you CAN'T legitimately argue "still murder" because no death involved. That was is premise of the thread.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:48 pm You were saying abortion => murder. Murder involves death. Where is the death here?

Babies. Are you high?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:00 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:48 pm You were saying abortion => murder. Murder involves death. Where is the death here?

Babies. Are you high?

I am reaching the conclusion that you are unaware of the premise.

The premise is "what if the fetus COULD be removed (alive) and placed in anther host, biological or artificial (not specified) where it could continue to develop". This is"abortion" (with regard to the original host) where NOT KILLED.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 3:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:00 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:48 pm You were saying abortion => murder. Murder involves death. Where is the death here?

Babies. Are you high?

I am reaching the conclusion that you are unaware of the premise.

I guess you'll have to start paying attention, then. You conclusion is manifestly unwarranted.

The premise is "what if the fetus COULD be removed (alive) and placed in anther host, biological or artificial (not specified) where it could continue to develop". This is"abortion" (with regard to the original host) where NOT KILLED.

Ah. I see your error.

The premise reads as follows:

"When we can keep a fetus alive at only a month old, when the brain isn't working yet, what will that do to ethics?"

That does not at all restrict discussion to the narrow subtopic into which you're keen to steer it. There is no mention whatsoever of replanting. And I suggest that if that happened, abortionists would simply continue to pretend that the (now proved conclusively viable) child is simply not a child, because they know they're murdering a baby anyway, and they want to, and they're not at all interested in any contrary truth. That they had come to know an early-term child could survive will not add any information to their ethical thinking that they care about at all. They won't stop murdering babies, or be daunted at all by the thought that the child, which they have often claimed to be unviable, had now been revealed to be a viable human being.

That's my claim. What your idea is,...well, that's pulled out of nothing in the OP, for sure.

You didn't see "When we can keep a fetus alive"? That implies a natural or artificial placenta -- monotremes have/need none (egg contains sufficient reserves) -- I think marsupials do have sort of one, just give birth prematurely compared to a normal placental mammal. The fetus of a placental mammal REQUIRES a placenta if it is to remain alive once the initial egg reserves are exhausted << a human fetus is living on egg reserves the first week or so following fertilization until it has attached and induced the uterus to form a placenta for it >>

Because THIS premise and other possible "what if" premises make for interesting discussion, I will restart an "abortion" thread in "Applied" but if/f you agree to discuss premise by premise. OK?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 5:14 pm You didn't see "When we can keep a fetus alive"?

Of course. But just because we "can" doesn't mean that they "will." It just means they could have -- however, it would certainly imperil the excuse "the baby couldn't have survived, anyway."

But ethically, will abortionists reconsider their murders? They've already crossed that rubicon, in terms of turning off their moral faculties and blocking the natural channels of compassion, and done it long ago, and done it ardently. They don't balk at late-stage, third-trimester and even partial-birth baby murders. I doubt they'll care about any innovation proving that life can be viable in the womb earlier.

So what would it change in their ethics? Nothing.