Total Posts:113|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The FLO argument

emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 12:42:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

What is unsettling is the use of meaningful. So if the baby would be born with a disease, or autism, or within a homeless family is it therefore justified to abort it since its existence would not be subjectively meaningful?

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?
Nolite Timere
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 1:40:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

This premise assumes there are things which are morally wrong, which is a belief not accepted by everyone.


P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

That's simply a baseless assumption. We have no idea what happens when aborted fetuses die. If reincarnation was true, it is possible that aborted babies reincarnate again. The problem with this premise is that pretends that we know exactly what happens at the moment of death.

C: Abortion morally wrong.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 1:42:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?

It's an attempt to justify an arbitrary delineation. Fetuses have FLO, but sperms don't because....because, apparently. I've never found it compelling, though I did when I first heard it find it interesting.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 1:44:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:40:14 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

This premise assumes there are things which are morally wrong, which is a belief not accepted by everyone.


P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

That's simply a baseless assumption. We have no idea what happens when aborted fetuses die. If reincarnation was true, it is possible that aborted babies reincarnate again. The problem with this premise is that pretends that we know exactly what happens at the moment of death.

Well, if FLO is accepted as an argument (and I don't, to be clear), the mearningful future would be the specific meaningful future it was going to get, which reincarnation wouldn't solve.

The other problem of using reincarnation as a justification is that it seems as though it could be applied to adult persons, too, calling into question the idea of murder as immoral.

C: Abortion morally wrong.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 1:45:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?

Countered with Reductio ad absurdum, or snakes and ladders. Any and all actions can deprive a being of a meaningful future. My action or inaction to not buy a pair of shoes could result in a retailer not meeting their quota for the day, and as a result deprives them of money they need which could result in a very nasty chain of events.

If this logic were accepted as valid then all actions would be immoral and ultimately immorality would become meaningless.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 1:55:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, if FLO is accepted as an argument (and I don't, to be clear), the mearningful future would be the specific meaningful future it was going to get, which reincarnation wouldn't solve.

Good point, although I can argue from a deterministic perspective that such a fetus wasn't meant to have a future according to cosmic forces which predestined it's death and reincarnation elsewhere. (I suppose this is the view some believers in reincarnation hold).

The other problem of using reincarnation as a justification is that it seems as though it could be applied to adult persons, too, calling into question the idea of murder as immoral.

I don't see that as a problem, but another implication, if you will. If you maintain moral nihilism, then you wouldn't care about such implications, at least when establishing if something is absolutely wrong or just wrong according to institutional norms.
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 2:01:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:42:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?

It's an attempt to justify an arbitrary delineation. Fetuses have FLO, but sperms don't because....because, apparently. I've never found it compelling, though I did when I first heard it find it interesting.

This is a rather weak objection and the answer is actually right there in the original paper. The FLO account for the wrongness of killing is victim based, there has to be a subject of the would-be loss. I am not aware of any valid reason to indentify a sperm as the subject of harm, rather than the ovum and vice versa, or any possible combination.
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 2:06:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 2:01:14 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:42:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?

It's an attempt to justify an arbitrary delineation. Fetuses have FLO, but sperms don't because....because, apparently. I've never found it compelling, though I did when I first heard it find it interesting.

This is a rather weak objection and the answer is actually right there in the original paper. The FLO account for the wrongness of killing is victim based, there has to be a subject of the would-be loss. I am not aware of any valid reason to indentify a sperm as the subject of harm, rather than the ovum and vice versa, or any possible combination.

And what, specific reason, is given for affording a zygote the status of "subject of harm"? IIRC it's justified wholly on the FLO--an argument which could be extended upon essentially the same basis to the sperm or egg.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 2:08:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:55:34 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Well, if FLO is accepted as an argument (and I don't, to be clear), the mearningful future would be the specific meaningful future it was going to get, which reincarnation wouldn't solve.

Good point, although I can argue from a deterministic perspective that such a fetus wasn't meant to have a future according to cosmic forces which predestined it's death and reincarnation elsewhere. (I suppose this is the view some believers in reincarnation hold).

Very true, but again the consequences are broader than this specific case, which is usually presented with the assumption that killing a person is wrong, and we're asking whether the termination of a pregnancy is similarly wrong. (see below)

The other problem of using reincarnation as a justification is that it seems as though it could be applied to adult persons, too, calling into question the idea of murder as immoral.

I don't see that as a problem, but another implication, if you will. If you maintain moral nihilism, then you wouldn't care about such implications, at least when establishing if something is absolutely wrong or just wrong according to institutional norms.

Well, yeah--but questioning whether a specific act is immoral usually kind of presumes that you see morality a thing which can be discussed, don't you think?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 2:22:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 2:08:24 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:55:34 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Well, if FLO is accepted as an argument (and I don't, to be clear), the mearningful future would be the specific meaningful future it was going to get, which reincarnation wouldn't solve.

Good point, although I can argue from a deterministic perspective that such a fetus wasn't meant to have a future according to cosmic forces which predestined it's death and reincarnation elsewhere. (I suppose this is the view some believers in reincarnation hold).

Very true, but again the consequences are broader than this specific case, which is usually presented with the assumption that killing a person is wrong, and we're asking whether the termination of a pregnancy is similarly wrong. (see below)


Surely, if it is a question of similarly wrong, then the whole framework changes. If you believe that killing a person is immoral, then the debate would really go over if the fetus was actually a person or a collection of cells, but I approached the FLO argument in an isolated manner, I guess.

The other problem of using reincarnation as a justification is that it seems as though it could be applied to adult persons, too, calling into question the idea of murder as immoral.

I don't see that as a problem, but another implication, if you will. If you maintain moral nihilism, then you wouldn't care about such implications, at least when establishing if something is absolutely wrong or just wrong according to institutional norms.

Well, yeah--but questioning whether a specific act is immoral usually kind of presumes that you see morality a thing which can be discussed, don't you think?

Moral nihilism could be a part of the discussion as well. I suppose I wouldn't be discussing this in a church. :D
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 2:22:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 2:06:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:01:14 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:42:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?

It's an attempt to justify an arbitrary delineation. Fetuses have FLO, but sperms don't because....because, apparently. I've never found it compelling, though I did when I first heard it find it interesting.

This is a rather weak objection and the answer is actually right there in the original paper. The FLO account for the wrongness of killing is victim based, there has to be a subject of the would-be loss. I am not aware of any valid reason to indentify a sperm as the subject of harm, rather than the ovum and vice versa, or any possible combination.

And what, specific reason, is given for affording a zygote the status of "subject of harm"? IIRC it's justified wholly on the FLO--an argument which could be extended upon essentially the same basis to the sperm or egg.

What is needed for the wrong of killing is an individual who is deprived of a future like ours. If the sperm and the egg were earlier stages of me, then each of them would be the same individual as I. If each of them were the same individual as I, then, since identity is transitive, that sperm and that egg were identical. They were not. The zygote was.
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 2:33:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 2:22:37 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:06:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:01:14 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:42:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?

It's an attempt to justify an arbitrary delineation. Fetuses have FLO, but sperms don't because....because, apparently. I've never found it compelling, though I did when I first heard it find it interesting.

This is a rather weak objection and the answer is actually right there in the original paper. The FLO account for the wrongness of killing is victim based, there has to be a subject of the would-be loss. I am not aware of any valid reason to indentify a sperm as the subject of harm, rather than the ovum and vice versa, or any possible combination.

And what, specific reason, is given for affording a zygote the status of "subject of harm"? IIRC it's justified wholly on the FLO--an argument which could be extended upon essentially the same basis to the sperm or egg.

What is needed for the wrong of killing is an individual who is deprived of a future like ours. If the sperm and the egg were earlier stages of me, then each of them would be the same individual as I. If each of them were the same individual as I, then, since identity is transitive, that sperm and that egg were identical. They were not. The zygote was.

So you and a fetus are identical?

I would argue that's not the case--that, while your genes may have been, there are clear and obvious differences, and so your transitive identity claim fails--in a similar manner to the sperm and the egg.

Imagine I pour cupcake mix into a cupcake tin. Until it has baked, it's still just cupcake mix in a cupcake tin. It will eventually be a cupcake--but I see no more "cupcakeness" to it, really, than I do to the disparate elements of the cupcake, pre-mix. Not cooking it seems, to me, no worse than not mixing it in the first place.

Similarly, until the genes are expressed to a sufficient degree that there is a "person" involved, I would argue that the zygote is NOT you--but rather, an earlier stage of you--a pre-you, if you will.

The FLO argument ignores that the fetus does NOT have a future like ours until it exits the womb--I do not require the life-support mechanism of another in order to survive.

I've said for years that if the Pro-life contingent really wanted to make strides to support their case, they'd work on ways to remove zygotes from women without ending the zygote's life--because as it stands, with the only way for the woman to control her body involving the killing, I'm not sympathetic to what I see as these weak cases in support of what I consider a form of slavery or, at the very least, an involuntary indentured servitude.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 3:11:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 2:33:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:22:37 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:06:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:01:14 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:42:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?

It's an attempt to justify an arbitrary delineation. Fetuses have FLO, but sperms don't because....because, apparently. I've never found it compelling, though I did when I first heard it find it interesting.

This is a rather weak objection and the answer is actually right there in the original paper. The FLO account for the wrongness of killing is victim based, there has to be a subject of the would-be loss. I am not aware of any valid reason to indentify a sperm as the subject of harm, rather than the ovum and vice versa, or any possible combination.

And what, specific reason, is given for affording a zygote the status of "subject of harm"? IIRC it's justified wholly on the FLO--an argument which could be extended upon essentially the same basis to the sperm or egg.

What is needed for the wrong of killing is an individual who is deprived of a future like ours. If the sperm and the egg were earlier stages of me, then each of them would be the same individual as I. If each of them were the same individual as I, then, since identity is transitive, that sperm and that egg were identical. They were not. The zygote was.

So you and a fetus are identical?

I was once a fetus, yes.

I would argue that's not the case--that, while your genes may have been, there are clear and obvious differences, and so your transitive identity claim fails--in a similar manner to the sperm and the egg.

Sure, but the fetus and I are the same identity, though admittedly very different.

Imagine I pour cupcake mix into a cupcake tin. Until it has baked, it's still just cupcake mix in a cupcake tin. It will eventually be a cupcake--but I see no more "cupcakeness" to it, really, than I do to the disparate elements of the cupcake, pre-mix. Not cooking it seems, to me, no worse than not mixing it in the first place.

Nice analogy. I think the cupcake mix would be analogous to the sperm and egg. Once it is cooked it became a cupcake, likewise once the sperm fertilizes the egg it became and embryo. That embryo has grown to be a fetus, then an infant, then a child and finally an adult, but all the time it was the same entity... me. Your analogy would actually be a good argument why contraception would not be immoral.

Similarly, until the genes are expressed to a sufficient degree that there is a "person" involved, I would argue that the zygote is NOT you--but rather, an earlier stage of you--a pre-you, if you will.

Do you agree that human life starts at conception?

The FLO argument ignores that the fetus does NOT have a future like ours until it exits the womb--I do not require the life-support mechanism of another in order to survive.

How is spatial location a morally relevant factor? Would it be moral for a mother to refuse to breastfeed her infant, given no alternatives available?

I've said for years that if the Pro-life contingent really wanted to make strides to support their case, they'd work on ways to remove zygotes from women without ending the zygote's life--because as it stands, with the only way for the woman to control her body involving the killing, I'm not sympathetic to what I see as these weak cases in support of what I consider a form of slavery or, at the very least, an involuntary indentured servitude.

Nice idea, maybe they are working on that? I like to think too that most women would probably not object were the fetus to survive. But it is irrelevant to the moral question. If the mother engaged in voluntary sexual intercourse leading up to someone on her property then the latter one cannot be regarded as trespasser, don't you think? Slavery is a big word there, even if I were to be on your side of the fence I would disagree with that.
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 5:12:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In my view, easily the best argument against abortion choice and I've defended it in a few debates. I've not really heard a decent objection to it yet.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:15:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 3:11:17 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:33:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:22:37 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:06:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:01:14 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:42:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?

It's an attempt to justify an arbitrary delineation. Fetuses have FLO, but sperms don't because....because, apparently. I've never found it compelling, though I did when I first heard it find it interesting.

This is a rather weak objection and the answer is actually right there in the original paper. The FLO account for the wrongness of killing is victim based, there has to be a subject of the would-be loss. I am not aware of any valid reason to indentify a sperm as the subject of harm, rather than the ovum and vice versa, or any possible combination.

And what, specific reason, is given for affording a zygote the status of "subject of harm"? IIRC it's justified wholly on the FLO--an argument which could be extended upon essentially the same basis to the sperm or egg.

What is needed for the wrong of killing is an individual who is deprived of a future like ours. If the sperm and the egg were earlier stages of me, then each of them would be the same individual as I. If each of them were the same individual as I, then, since identity is transitive, that sperm and that egg were identical. They were not. The zygote was.

So you and a fetus are identical?

I was once a fetus, yes.

I would argue that's not accurate. That which is "you" includes your mind definitionally--and if you became abruptly headless, you wouldn't be "you" any more.

But I understand you may disagree--yet at the same time, rules of identity like that become problematic (cf. the Ship of Thesus). Ignoring the necessary aspect of your own mentation makes that problem far more pronounced.

I would argue that's not the case--that, while your genes may have been, there are clear and obvious differences, and so your transitive identity claim fails--in a similar manner to the sperm and the egg.

Sure, but the fetus and I are the same identity, though admittedly very different.

Then you how, really, do you define identity?

If I cut off your finger, it's a part of you I've cut off--it's still your finger, right? I'm presuming you'd agree to that. Yet, to you, the two halves that make the zygote aren't part of it, they must be fused, which would indicate that you don't really agree with that.

Imagine I pour cupcake mix into a cupcake tin. Until it has baked, it's still just cupcake mix in a cupcake tin. It will eventually be a cupcake--but I see no more "cupcakeness" to it, really, than I do to the disparate elements of the cupcake, pre-mix. Not cooking it seems, to me, no worse than not mixing it in the first place.

Nice analogy. I think the cupcake mix would be analogous to the sperm and egg. Once it is cooked it became a cupcake, likewise once the sperm fertilizes the egg it became and embryo. That embryo has grown to be a fetus, then an infant, then a child and finally an adult, but all the time it was the same entity... me. Your analogy would actually be a good argument why contraception would not be immoral.

Contraception varies in kind. But there are several that do not necessarily prevent fertilization, but merely minimize it, and then also prevents implantation. While there are limited studies on the actual process, the physical changes (prevention of ovulation, mucous thickening, thinning of uterine walls) are documented and are the reason for the claims.

If you believe personhood begins at the moment of the joining of the sperm and the egg into a single entity, then you believe birth control pills can be morally equivalent to murder.

Similarly, until the genes are expressed to a sufficient degree that there is a "person" involved, I would argue that the zygote is NOT you--but rather, an earlier stage of you--a pre-you, if you will.

Do you agree that human life starts at conception?

I don't agree that "human life" = personhood by necessity. It is the relative personhood which justifies our ability or inability to take a life. Animals aren't people--we're allowed to kill them. People are people, we aren't allowed to kill them.

"Human life" in terms of genetics starts at conception. But there's often an equivocation that human life necessarily equates to "same moral weight", and that's absurd to me.

The FLO argument ignores that the fetus does NOT have a future like ours until it exits the womb--I do not require the life-support mechanism of another in order to survive.

How is spatial location a morally relevant factor? Would it be moral for a mother to refuse to breastfeed her infant, given no alternatives available?

That depends. Has she voluntarily taken on responsibility for the child?

In general, I would say it would not be immoral, given a hypothetical scenario (say, post-apocalypse) where there are no other people around she can shift the child to. Doing so would be a reasonable minimum, and something available all the time now--you can give up your kid, and so I would say failing to do so can be argued to be a moral wrong. In world where that wasn't a possibility, seeing as I am morally opposed to slavery I would not find it immoral of the woman to refuse to be one--and laboring for another against your will seems awful slave-like to me (as opposed to doing it because you're willing to).

Further, of course, barring nutritional issues (post apocalypse, after all), breastfeeding doesn't really harm the mother--and, in fact, she's likely to have to get rid of the milk somehow, anyway. Unless she wants to drink it herself, it seems unnecessarily mean to refuse to just let the kid have it.

I've said for years that if the Pro-life contingent really wanted to make strides to support their case, they'd work on ways to remove zygotes from women without ending the zygote's life--because as it stands, with the only way for the woman to control her body involving the killing, I'm not sympathetic to what I see as these weak cases in support of what I consider a form of slavery or, at the very least, an involuntary indentured servitude.

Nice idea, maybe they are working on that? I like to think too that most women would probably not object were the fetus to survive. But it is irrelevant to the moral question.

It only is irrelevant if the woman is irrelevant to the moral question. A position I certainly don't agree with.

If the mother engaged in voluntary sexual intercourse leading up to someone on her property then the latter one cannot be regarded as trespasser, don't you think? Slavery is a big word there, even if I were to be on your side of the fence I would disagree with that.

Permission to remain on property can be revoked. Yet you want t
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:18:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry, the last got cut off.

Was supposed to be:

"Permission to remain on property can be revoked. Yet you want to deny that ability to revoke. Which means that if I invite someone over to my house for a party, he never has to leave unless he chooses to. That seems rather absurd, even if I took the argument at face value. Which I don't, since I don't think that the woman's supposed "implicit" permission is anywhere near the explicit permission of inviting someone over.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:35:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 2:33:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:22:37 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:06:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:01:14 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:42:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?

It's an attempt to justify an arbitrary delineation. Fetuses have FLO, but sperms don't because....because, apparently. I've never found it compelling, though I did when I first heard it find it interesting.

This is a rather weak objection and the answer is actually right there in the original paper. The FLO account for the wrongness of killing is victim based, there has to be a subject of the would-be loss. I am not aware of any valid reason to indentify a sperm as the subject of harm, rather than the ovum and vice versa, or any possible combination.

And what, specific reason, is given for affording a zygote the status of "subject of harm"? IIRC it's justified wholly on the FLO--an argument which could be extended upon essentially the same basis to the sperm or egg.

What is needed for the wrong of killing is an individual who is deprived of a future like ours. If the sperm and the egg were earlier stages of me, then each of them would be the same individual as I. If each of them were the same individual as I, then, since identity is transitive, that sperm and that egg were identical. They were not. The zygote was.

So you and a fetus are identical?


The fetus is a human organism that develops into me.... Things don't "die" when they develop. So the fetus didn't die. So it's alive. It's not a part of me, and it's not existing outside of me. So it is me.

I would argue that's not the case--that, while your genes may have been, there are clear and obvious differences, and so your transitive identity claim fails--in a similar manner to the sperm and the egg.

Imagine I pour cupcake mix into a cupcake tin. Until it has baked, it's still just cupcake mix in a cupcake tin. It will eventually be a cupcake--but I see no more "cupcakeness" to it, really, than I do to the disparate elements of the cupcake, pre-mix. Not cooking it seems, to me, no worse than not mixing it in the first place.

Similarly, until the genes are expressed to a sufficient degree that there is a "person" involved, I would argue that the zygote is NOT you--but rather, an earlier stage of you--a pre-you, if you will.


So what happens to the fetus then?

The FLO argument ignores that the fetus does NOT have a future like ours until it exits the womb--I do not require the life-support mechanism of another in order to survive.


Yes it does.

I've said for years that if the Pro-life contingent really wanted to make strides to support their case, they'd work on ways to remove zygotes from women without ending the zygote's life--because as it stands, with the only way for the woman to control her body involving the killing, I'm not sympathetic to what I see as these weak cases in support of what I consider a form of slavery or, at the very least, an involuntary indentured servitude.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:36:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 12:42:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

What is unsettling is the use of meaningful. So if the baby would be born with a disease, or autism, or within a homeless family is it therefore justified to abort it since its existence would not be subjectively meaningful?


No, not at all. First, that's invalid reasoning. It's like saying...

P1: All men die eventually
P2: My pet rabbit Thumper is not a man.
C: Thumper will never die.

It just doesn't follow.

But the point is that even the cases of what you bring up, will have meaningful futures. It will be meaningful to them, and it is meaningful in itself. We're depriving them of their future life, which is a good thing in itself and to them, and is thus immoral.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:37:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?

That formulation sounds oddly familiar....
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:38:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:40:14 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

This premise assumes there are things which are morally wrong, which is a belief not accepted by everyone.


P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).

That's simply a baseless assumption. We have no idea what happens when aborted fetuses die. If reincarnation was true, it is possible that aborted babies reincarnate again. The problem with this premise is that pretends that we know exactly what happens at the moment of death.


Huh? It doesn't do that at all. All it says is that there's a being, which, left to itself, will develop into a human being and have a meaningful future. It's immoral to snatch away any being's meaningful future... and that's what abortion does by destroying a new human organism which obviously has a meaningful future.

C: Abortion morally wrong.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:40:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 6:18:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Sorry, the last got cut off.

Was supposed to be:

"Permission to remain on property can be revoked. Yet you want to deny that ability to revoke. Which means that if I invite someone over to my house for a party, he never has to leave unless he chooses to. That seems rather absurd, even if I took the argument at face value. Which I don't, since I don't think that the woman's supposed "implicit" permission is anywhere near the explicit permission of inviting someone over.

It's not really just asking the fetus to leave though, is it? It's directly destroying it... so if the person is invited over to your house by you, and then a poisonous gas cloud comes down around your house, no, you can't kick him outside.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:43:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Huh? It doesn't do that at all. All it says is that there's a being, which, left to itself, will develop into a human being and have a meaningful future. It's immoral to snatch away any being's meaningful future... and that's what abortion does by destroying a new human organism which obviously has a meaningful future.

I think I just had the same discussion with Blade on this. What if that being was destined not to have a meaningful future, but to to be aborted to be reincarnated again in another life where he does have a meaningful future? My objection is simply that we don't really know for a fact whether that being was meant to have a future or not, given that there are many alternatives which are glossed over, such as one where determinism is true and reincarnation occurs after death.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:47:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 6:43:34 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Huh? It doesn't do that at all. All it says is that there's a being, which, left to itself, will develop into a human being and have a meaningful future. It's immoral to snatch away any being's meaningful future... and that's what abortion does by destroying a new human organism which obviously has a meaningful future.

I think I just had the same discussion with Blade on this. What if that being was destined not to have a meaningful future, but to to be aborted to be reincarnated again in another life where he does have a meaningful future? My objection is simply that we don't really know for a fact whether that being was meant to have a future or not, given that there are many alternatives which are glossed over, such as one where determinism is true and reincarnation occurs after death.

This is basically what dylancatlow believes to be true.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:49:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 6:47:58 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 3/19/2014 6:43:34 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Huh? It doesn't do that at all. All it says is that there's a being, which, left to itself, will develop into a human being and have a meaningful future. It's immoral to snatch away any being's meaningful future... and that's what abortion does by destroying a new human organism which obviously has a meaningful future.

I think I just had the same discussion with Blade on this. What if that being was destined not to have a meaningful future, but to to be aborted to be reincarnated again in another life where he does have a meaningful future? My objection is simply that we don't really know for a fact whether that being was meant to have a future or not, given that there are many alternatives which are glossed over, such as one where determinism is true and reincarnation occurs after death.

This is basically what dylancatlow believes to be true.

Lol. Are you stalking me?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:51:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 6:49:54 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 6:47:58 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 3/19/2014 6:43:34 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Huh? It doesn't do that at all. All it says is that there's a being, which, left to itself, will develop into a human being and have a meaningful future. It's immoral to snatch away any being's meaningful future... and that's what abortion does by destroying a new human organism which obviously has a meaningful future.

I think I just had the same discussion with Blade on this. What if that being was destined not to have a meaningful future, but to to be aborted to be reincarnated again in another life where he does have a meaningful future? My objection is simply that we don't really know for a fact whether that being was meant to have a future or not, given that there are many alternatives which are glossed over, such as one where determinism is true and reincarnation occurs after death.

This is basically what dylancatlow believes to be true.

Lol. Are you stalking me?

Do you like it? :3
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:51:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 6:43:34 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Huh? It doesn't do that at all. All it says is that there's a being, which, left to itself, will develop into a human being and have a meaningful future. It's immoral to snatch away any being's meaningful future... and that's what abortion does by destroying a new human organism which obviously has a meaningful future.

I think I just had the same discussion with Blade on this. What if that being was destined not to have a meaningful future, but to to be aborted to be reincarnated again in another life where he does have a meaningful future? My objection is simply that we don't really know for a fact whether that being was meant to have a future or not, given that there are many alternatives which are glossed over, such as one where determinism is true and reincarnation occurs after death.

Occam's razor eats reincarnation alive.

The point is that it's not about whether or not the being was "meant" to have a meaningful future. The point is that it does.

So we could just justify any being's murder as what was "meant" to happen? Sorry, that sounds like a load of bullsh*t.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:56:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 6:51:23 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 6:43:34 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Huh? It doesn't do that at all. All it says is that there's a being, which, left to itself, will develop into a human being and have a meaningful future. It's immoral to snatch away any being's meaningful future... and that's what abortion does by destroying a new human organism which obviously has a meaningful future.

I think I just had the same discussion with Blade on this. What if that being was destined not to have a meaningful future, but to to be aborted to be reincarnated again in another life where he does have a meaningful future? My objection is simply that we don't really know for a fact whether that being was meant to have a future or not, given that there are many alternatives which are glossed over, such as one where determinism is true and reincarnation occurs after death.

Occam's razor eats reincarnation alive.

Care to elaborate.

The point is that it's not about whether or not the being was "meant" to have a meaningful future. The point is that it does.

Not necessarily.

So we could just justify any being's murder as what was "meant" to happen? Sorry, that sounds like a load of bullsh*t.

I don't see why. You can also justify the criminal getting punished as something that also was meant to happen, from a deterministic perspective.

I don't personally adopt that view, I'm just saying that for this argument to work, it needs to full those gaps. But yes, you can argue against determinism and reincarnation to do so.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:56:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 12:18:31 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
The future-like-ours is a philosophical argument against abortion put forth by Don Marquis [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. It states that abortion is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives a being of a meaningful future or a future-like-ours (FLO). It goes like this;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is morally wrong.

This just seems another that killing is wrong, abortion kills ergo abortion is wrong.

I find it a weak position cause logically it commits one to pacifism. Never the less I can at least respect the consistency of it if some one follows through. What I won't allow is some one using the thou shalt not kill rule or FLO and then deciding arbitrarily when it does and not not apply.

Is it always wrong to kill another human being ? No.

Is it always wrong to deprive a being of its FLO ? No.


P2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).


C: Abortion morally wrong.

Thoughts?

I don't think we should accept P1. And I bet the person who argues for it doesn't really accept it either. They probably only apply it sometimes to get the outcome they want in this case abortion is morally wrong but they will be forced into exemptions when we use various hypo and no so hypothetical.

But that is the fun of debate eh ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12