Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by vivify
If what you say is true, that a zygote is just a "hunk of meat", then why are women upset if they miscarry soon after finding out they are pregnant? After all, it's not like they lost a person, right?

Why are women upset after sad movies? It's not like those people were real. It's probably not a good strategy to try and read off principles of moral consideration from facts about when people are or are not upset. After all, many people are not upset in the slightest by the killing of other ethnic groups. That doesn't support the conclusion that these ethnic groups aren't comprised of people, does it?

But, if you're after a psychological explanation for women being upset at miscarriage, I'm sure you could look it up. I've known women who have felt despair but didn't identify with it; they felt as though they were being invaded by emotions that weren't really theirs and chalked it up to extreme hormonal fluctuation. I've also known women who were profoundly upset because they realized upon getting pregnant that they wanted to be mothers and began to hope for it just to have it all fall apart. I've also known women who were upset because they felt "like they were damaged" or less than full women by not being able to carry to term. What does any of this have to do with the moral status of a fetus? Nothing.

Originally posted by bbarr
Why are women upset after sad movies? It's not like those people were real. It's probably not a good strategy to try and read off principles of moral consideration from facts about when people are or are not upset. After all, many people are not upset in the slightest by the killing of other ethnic groups. That doesn't support the conclusion that these eth ...[text shortened]... term. What does any of this have to do with the moral status of a fetus? Nothing.

True, but there's no reason not to give a fetus strong moral consideration.

Originally posted by bbarr
Why are women upset after sad movies? It's not like those people were real. It's probably not a good strategy to try and read off principles of moral consideration from facts about when people are or are not upset. After all, many people are not upset in the slightest by the killing of other ethnic groups. That doesn't support the conclusion that these eth ...[text shortened]... term. What does any of this have to do with the moral status of a fetus? Nothing.

My wife gets angry at me when I laugh about certain things that she doesn't think is funny. Of course when she confronts me about, it makes me laugh even more and she gets even more angry. So I have to leave the room for awhile until I can stop smiling.

Originally posted by vivify
True, but there's no reason not to give a fetus strong moral consideration.

Well, I guess that depends on what you think morality is all about. Personally, I find it hard to think of any good reasons to accord moral status to an entity that lacks a mind. That's because the vast majority of our moral reasoning seems to be tied up with issues of human flourishing, and this notion is itself tied up with issues of autonomy and harm. Early fetuses lack consciousness, rudimentary rationality, and most certainly autonomy. I'm not sure why they should be considered more important than plants, as far as our moral calculus is concerned, other than that they are often the objects of particular concern and care of others. Then again, so are objects like cars and homes. They are, in some sense, potential persons, but I've never come across an argument based on potentiality that carried any weight (or even made much sense). Of course, I think this all gets much, much trickier around the third trimester, when it seems a host of basic mental capacities come online.

I guess if you want to get to the bottom of the whole thing, it's best to start by clarifying the normative ethical theory or moral framework you're employing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My wife gets angry at me when I laugh about certain things that she doesn't think is funny. Of course when she confronts me about, it makes me laugh even more and she gets even more angry. So I have to leave the room for awhile until I can stop smiling.

My fiance stamps her foot when she's upset. I find it so endearing I have to keep from laughing. I'll hug her just so she doesn't see me about to laugh. But she laughs at me when I get upset, because apparently my face scrunches up and I look "like a little thunder cloud". It could be worse!

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, I guess that depends on what you think morality is all about. Personally, I find it hard to think of any good reasons to accord moral status to an entity that lacks a mind..

But that's just it; a fetus doesn't really "lack" a mind in that a mind will develop, if left alone. Everything is there for a "mind", which has already begun.

Originally posted by vivify
But that's just it; a fetus doesn't really "lack" a mind in that a mind will develop, if left alone. Everything is there for a "mind", which has already begun.

Right, this is one very common type of argument. Here are a variety of responses:

1) Your first claim is just false. If a fetus merely will have a mind later, then the fetus lacks a mind now. That's just a function of what the words mean.

2) Further, the fact (if it is a fact) that fetuses will have minds doesn't support the inference to the conclusion that fetuses have moral status. From the premises "Creature with minds have moral status" & "Fetuses do not, but will have minds", it simply does not follow that "Fetuses have moral status". You'd need a bridge premise here. The problem is that any bridge premise that would do the work to establish the validity of this inference would itself be question-begging. It would amount to stipulating that creatures who lack the requisite properties for moral status ought be accorded moral status anyway, if they will eventually develop those properties. Do you have any good moral reasons for thinking this bridge premise is true?

3) More generally, there are all sorts of cases where an entities that are merely potentially X's are legitimately denied the rights and benefits accorded to actual X's. Right now I am potentially the person who will work a shift tomorrow. If left alone, it is astoundingly likely I will be that person. But I have no claim today on the wages my labor could earn tomorrow. Newly elected officials are not granted the rights and benefits of their offices prior to their inauguration, despite it being the case that, if left alone, they will have those rights and benefits after inauguration. My fiance is potentially my wife; barring some tragedy, she will be my actual wife next year. But that does not mean that we should now enjoy those additional benefits and protections that accompany marriage. I mean, the examples are endless.

4) Additionally, it's just false that the only thing required for a fetus to develop a mind is to be "left alone". Some fetuses are left alone and die via miscarriage. Some fetuses are left alone and develop defects that prevent the development of minds. Heck, roughly half of all fertilized eggs (which have potential minds, in your sense, in exactly the same way as embryos) are lost in the first couple weeks. Some get stuck in the fallopian tube, some fail to implant in the uterine wall, some implant but don't continue to develop. All sorts of things could happen. And what does "left alone" even mean here? You can't mean that an embryo will develop a mind if the woman really leaves it alone by detaching it from her body. You mean, essentially, that an embryo will develop a mind if a woman decides to carry it, is conscientious about how she treats her body, is in a relatively safe and nourishing environment, etc. What you mean, essentially, is that an embryo will develop a mind if none of the myriad things that could go wrong do go wrong. But that's just like saying that an embryo will develop a mind unless it doesn't. And that is an empty truth. Sheesh, I will be the next President of the United States (unless I'm not), but that doesn't warrant giving me the missile codes!

Originally posted by bbarr
Right, this is one very common type of argument. Here are a variety of responses:

1) Your first claim is just false. If a fetus merely will have a mind later, then the fetus lacks a mind now. That's just a function of [b]what the words mean.

2) Further, the fact (if it is a fact) that fetuses will have minds doesn't su ...[text shortened]... es (unless I'm not), but that doesn't warrant giving me the missile codes![/b]

I like these arguments. They fairly nearly surround the issue.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, moral justification is only partly based on motivation. I can have the best motivations and still act callously if I don't take the time to figure out what people actually need. If out of concern I move an injured person and, in the process, injure them further, I have acted badly despite having generally good motivations.

But even if moral justific easons to abort. You can't just assume these things; they're tendentious.

That this general principle is not in the forefront of her mind is immaterial,

its not immaterial at all, women do not get abortions because of any notion of the right of self determination, they get them for a whole variety of other reasons, which are well documented. To state that the principal is not at the forefront of their minds is to ignore the empirical evidence of why they get abortions, to ignore the real motivating factor and to attempt to indirectly diminish responsibility. The majority of abortions are conducted because of social convenience, not because of any notion of any kind of perceived rights and it has been demonstrated that convenience is not a valid reason and thus immoral. What if the whole of society was to function on the basis of what was personally convenient claiming the right of self determination as the basis?

Originally posted by bbarr
Why are women upset after sad movies? It's not like those people were real. It's probably not a good strategy to try and read off principles of moral consideration from facts about when people are or are not upset. After all, many people are not upset in the slightest by the killing of other ethnic groups. That doesn't support the conclusion that these eth ...[text shortened]... term. What does any of this have to do with the moral status of a fetus? Nothing.

Its not a case of getting simply upset, there are many women who need counselling,
professional therapy after undergoing an abortion because of deep emotional trauma.
Clearly they are having some kind of crisis of conscience which would suggest a moral
perspective is involved. In the case of those who kill and feel no remorse, either their
conscience is not functioning, or they find some kind of justification which over rules
the dictates of the conscience and they remain remorseless. Even so one can find
justification for even a wrong action and many types of arguments are being proposed
which do just that, but the fact of the matter is, its simply not good enough for some
women and they suffer trauma as a consequence.

Originally posted by vivify
If what you say is true, that a zygote is just a "hunk of meat", then why are women upset if they miscarry soon after finding out they are pregnant? After all, it's not like they lost a person, right?

[Snark removed]

There is a difference between the morality of a situation and the emotion of a situation.
And a difference between the legality (or ideal legality) of a situation and the morality of it.
So an action or circumstance could be morally good or neutral, but emotionally fraught.
Or it could be immoral, but is (and should be) legal. (for example it might be immoral to deeply offend and insult
someone, depending, but it's also perfectly legal to do so.)

If you don't want a baby and find yourself pregnant then you might be perfectly happy to have an abortion.

However if you were desperately trying to have a baby (or it came as a surprise, but one you embraced) and
then you miscarried, and involuntarily lost the pregnancy... then that is a totally different experience.

I argue that a woman has the legal right to determine what happens inside her body.
I thus legally support what would be termed unlimited abortion.

Morally (excepting cases of medical emergency) I think that if a baby has reached the developmental stage that
it could be successfully (if prematurely) delivered, if an abortion would be about as risky/traumatic as giving birth,
then you probably shouldn't have an abortion. If you don't want the baby at that point, giving it up for adoption
is probably more ethical.


However the choice is, and should be, entirely the mothers.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, moral justification is only partly based on motivation. I can have the best motivations and still act callously if I don't take the time to figure out what people actually need. If out of concern I move an injured person and, in the process, injure them further, I have acted badly despite having generally good motivations.

But even if moral justific ...[text shortened]... easons to abort. You can't just assume these things; they're tendentious.

Exceedingly well put.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[Snark removed]

There is a difference between the morality of a situation and the emotion of a situation.
And a difference between the legality (or ideal legality) of a situation and the morality of it.
So an action or circumstance could be morally good or neutral, but emotionally fraught.
Or it could be immoral, but is (and should be) legal. [i](f ...[text shortened]...
is probably more ethical.


However the choice is, and should be, entirely the mothers.

what of course you claim is a nonsense and has no empirically established basis. For
someone who claims to believe in the scientific method, you are a charlatan.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Exceedingly well put.

like Mr Kiplings exceedingly good cakes. 🙄

Originally posted by bbarr
Right, this is one very common type of argument. Here are a variety of responses:

1) Your first claim is just false. If a fetus merely will have a mind later, then the fetus lacks a mind now. That's just a function of what the words mean.

2) Further, the fact (if it is a fact) that fetuses will have minds doesn't support the inference to the conclusion that fetuses have moral status.

Actually, it does. it's a human life being robbed of the chance to live. That's morally wrong.