Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[Lexicus]

Teleological ethics are accepted by many.

Hmm, argumentum ad populum? One fallacy piled on another?

Think about it this way- if dandelions were sentient, and their seeds were considered as zygotes, than is it their gliding threads that have value, or the portion of the seed which grows the plant?

Arbitrary distinction. The gliding threads are also essential to the proper development of the seed, as they carry it somewhere it can grow.

 

[El_Machinae]

The skin cell acquires moral worth when it is transformed into a zygote (or whatever equivalent the process creates).

So, as soon as it transitions from "something that needs a steady bath of hormones and nutrients in order to become a person" into "something that needs a steady bath of hormones and nutrients to become a person", it becomes morally significant?

Confusion aside, what attribute does a zygote-equivalent have that a skin cell does not have? Biologically, it's certainly biologically distinct. But morally? What moral distinction does it have?

 

[Mouthwash]

Hmm, argumentum ad populum? One fallacy piled on another?

I'm NOT arguing that teleological ethics are correct. I'm saying that they shouldn't be dismissed without argument.

Arbitrary distinction. The gliding threads are also essential to the proper development of the seed, as they carry it somewhere it can grow.

Being essential to something isn't the same as being part of it.

 

[Evie]

So doubling back all the way to an earlier example, then...

We do not value the nut or seed as much as we value the tree (much as you're trying to argue otherwise with dandelion). Yet, the nut, the seed, have the biological imperative to grow into the tree.

The idea that a thing has as much value as what it has the biological imperative/purpose/potential/Whatever latest word you want to use is still wholly unsupported. You haven't made a single point in its favor ; you've merely tried to dodge analogies that show otherwise. The onus is still *on you* to prove WHY a thing that has a (whatever you want to call it) to become a second thing should be valued as highly as the second thing.

 

[Mouthwash]

So, as soon as it transitions from "something that needs a steady bath of hormones and nutrients in order to become a person" into "something that needs a steady bath of hormones and nutrients to become a person", it becomes morally significant?

Confusion aside, what attribute does a zygote-equivalent have that a skin cell does not have? Biologically, it's certainly biologically distinct. But morally? What moral distinction does it have?

It becomes a human being? As far as I know that is not behavior which is displayed by unaltered skin cells.

So doubling back all the way to an earlier example, then...

We do not value the tree as much as we value the nut, or the seed. Yet, the nut, the seed, have the biological imperative to grow into the tree.

We don't value them as much because they aren't useful to us.

The idea that a thing has as much value as what it has the biological imperative/purpose/potential/Whatever latest word you want to use is still wholly unsupported and flies in the face of thousands of years of human tradition. You trying to use slightly different words to try and avoid analogies after analogies that prove you wrong still doesn't change that.

And this is about the point where I stop arguing.

 

[El_Machinae]

It becomes a human being? As far as I know that is not behavior which is displayed by unaltered skin cells.

It only becomes a person if fed a specific bath of hormones and nutrients. This is true of the skin cell as well. It doesn't 'become a human being'; it is forced to become a human being by people making deliberate choices to do so.

 

[Mouthwash]

It only becomes a person if fed a specific bath of hormones and nutrients. This is true of the skin cell as well. It doesn't 'become a human being'; it is forced to become a human being by people making deliberate choices to do so.

But skin cells display this quality entirely by accident. They aren't supposed to grow into human beings; their biological role is completely different.

 

[Evie]

What aspect of human evolution is not the result of accident?

 

[Mouthwash]

What aspect of human evolution is not the result of accident?

None. But it doesn't follow from that that biological behavior is accidental, at least on a micro-scale. Our bodies have very clear purposes.

 

[El_Machinae]

But skin cells display this quality entirely by accident. They aren't supposed to grow into human beings; their biological role is completely different.

I admit, I do have a hard time with teleological arguments. Once you give yourself the 'right' to define the 'role' of things, then you can just win all the arguments by assuming the conclusion.

There's a marked real difference between a pre-sentient and a post-sentient fetus, in that one has a characteristic that the other does not (a characteristic we very much value). But if we get into 'designed to', then there are all kinds of weirdnesses. A pill that blocks a step in the twinning process becomes murder. The Catholic position regarding oocytes becomes sensible. Pills that prevent miscarriage and force the fetuses to grow into horrible monsters are life-saving.

edit: I know you'll not pivot from your current pro-iife position. My biggest curiosity will be if you pivot from the comparison to coma patients. I've objected to it before, but it didn't seem to catch. edit2: my mistake, that was someone else.

 

[Evie]

None. But it doesn't follow from that that biological behavior is accidental, at least on a micro-scale. Our bodies have very clear purposes.

But the very fact of biological evolution suggest these purposes are not permanent nor certain. Some parts change purpose. Some parts lose purpose entirely. Some parts gain new purposes.

It seems to me you are entirely too attached to the idea of purpose. Almost as if, despite your protests otherwise, your philosophy was in fact built on the idea of design, and a designer...

 

[Mouthwash]

I admit, I do have a hard time with teleological arguments. Once you give yourself the 'right' to define the 'role' of things, then you can just win all the arguments by assuming the conclusion.

There's a marked real difference between a pre-sentient and a post-sentient fetus, in that one has a characteristic that the other does not (a characteristic we very much value). But if we get into 'designed to', then there are all kinds of weirdnesses. A pill that blocks a step in the twinning process becomes murder. The Catholic position regarding oocytes becomes sensible. Pills that prevent miscarriage and force the fetuses to grow into horrible monsters are life-saving.

Not that last one; it goes against the whole idea of teleology.

edit: I know you'll not pivot from your current pro-iife position. My biggest curiosity will be if you pivot from the comparison to coma patients. I've objected to it before, but it didn't seem to catch. edit2: my mistake, that was someone else.

Yeah, it seems a lot weaker to me now.

But the very fact of biological evolution suggest these purposes are not permanent nor certain. Some parts change purpose. Some parts lose purpose entirely. Some parts gain new purposes.

So? They still have purposes.

It seems to me you are entirely too attached to the idea of purpose. Almost as if, despite your protests otherwise, your philosophy was in fact built on the idea of design, and a designer...

No, my belief in this does not stem from theism. It's compatible with any viewpoint which involves morality.

It's somewhat odd that I'm being accused of this when I've advocated removing all women's ability to procreate. Not a position to attract many Bible thumpers...

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, it seems a lot weaker to me now

If it's any consolation, I find most of the pro-choice arguments regarding bodily autonomy to be vacuous. Especially in light that I believe that fetal sentience is a morally significant transition

 

[Lexicus]

If it's any consolation, I find most of the pro-choice arguments regarding bodily autonomy to be vacuous. Especially in light that I believe that fetal sentience is a morally significant transition

*shrug* If you don't think it's acceptable for me to force you to donate blood to me then you should find the bodily autonomy arguments convincing. Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term is a far greater violation of bodily autonomy than any organ donation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, it just skips the bit about who created the dependency. If I grabbed you, handcuffed you to me, slit your wrists, and then began an IV keeping you alive with my own blood .... the metrics about whether you may stop me from unplugging you are very different.

If I handcuffed us, and jumped in the ocean carrying a hacksaw I am not sure 'self defence' would win in court when I sawed off your arm to avoid drowning.

One party both creates the risk and the dependence. It is not so obvious we retain autonomy when we create the risk.

The whole 'creates the risk' is more obvious when the morally significant time point is relatively late.

 

[Lexicus]

One party both creates the risk and the dependence. It is not so obvious we retain autonomy when we create the risk.

Well, it takes two to tango, so to speak. It's not exactly 'one party' creating the dependence here. I don't think that it's at all fair to say that a woman is voluntarily ceding bodily autonomy when she has sex.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No. Right now, I'd support a state-sponsored orphanage. I know it sounds hideous, and I know that our childcare system is screwed, but every single one of those kids would prefer it to dying.

So you would rather prevent a woman from accepting responsibility for her actions and having an abortion and have the state take on that responsibility know that the state will do a terrible job?

Children living in an orphanage would refer it to dying. for a 12 week old fetus, I'm not sure the choice is relevant. They cannot choose.

Right to lifers who want to ban abortion, need to take responsibility for their political action and its impact on others. They need to be willing to accept into their homes and families all of those babies born because of the laws they pass. they are demanding that these babies be brought into this world. To demand such and then ignore the fruit of their effort is immoral. Your orphanage proposal is no better.

Question: Why is it so important to save all of these unborn lives?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, it takes two to tango, so to speak. It's not exactly 'one party' creating the dependence here. I don't think that it's at all fair to say that a woman is voluntarily ceding bodily autonomy when she has sex.

She doesn't. But there's only one person involved in nurturing a 20 week fetus into a sentient fetus.

 

[Lexicus]

She doesn't. But there's only one person involved in nurturing a 20 week fetus into a sentient fetus.

Is there really? I would argue that the woman is actually dependent on a great many people to successfully nurture the fetus, at least under conditions prevailing in most modern societies.
Bodily autonomy is not an argument for abortion being ethical anyway, it's an argument for the state not forcing women to carry pregnancies to term.

 

[El_Machinae]

Sure. Like I said, the arguments are usually vacuous. See 'bodily autonomy' wrt my hacksaw example above