The reason religion is so powerful

[John 6IX Breezy]

In other words, you value the rights of a blastocyst over a person with a story, hopes, dreams, loved ones, an inner life, and everything else that really makes a human being human. Such a champion of human dignity you are!

In the event of a fire, would you save an elderly person over an infant on the basis that they have a story, loved ones, and a coherent inner life? I don't think you would, given that society places value on children (but maybe you would). Perhaps the issue here has to do with faulty object permanence: The younger the individuals the more value is placed on their life, until it crosses into the womb and becomes "out of sight out of mind."

p.s. I didn't realize there were two abortion threads going on at once lol.

[brewer]

Actually, I left open the door to the possibilty that the developmental stages can be a consideration in balancing rights, which allows for some nuance around the issue. Otherwise, I remain firm that the unborn are as essentially human as humans of any other age.

Is that religious firm or science firm?

[Foxaèr]

Humanity is not the concern. Personhood is, and it's something a fetus lacks.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Personhood is, and it's something a fetus lacks.

Personhood is something we all lack, is it not? It must be ascribed by a governing body.

[The Architect Of Fate]

In the event of a fire, would you save an elderly person over an infant on the basis that they have a story, loved ones, and a coherent inner life? I don't think you would, given that society places value on children (but maybe you would).

In the event of a fire, you would save your 5-month-old baby over a stranger 5-minute old fetus as would just about everyone else. Most people would save the 5-month-old. This analogy is just as stupid as the first time you used it. 

 Perhaps the issue here has to do with faulty object permanence: The younger the individuals the more value is placed on their life until it crosses into the womb and becomes "out of sight out of mind."

Perhaps the issue is the inability to make a good argument. Because crossing the womb a distinction no matter how much you pretend it's not.


Your really really bad at this 

[Mister Agenda]

In other words, you value the rights of a blastocyst over a person with a story, hopes, dreams, loved ones, an inner life, and everything else that really makes a human being human. Such a champion of human dignity you are!

In the event of a fire, would you save an elderly person over an infant on the basis that they have a story, loved ones, and a coherent inner life? I don't think you would, given that society places value on children (but maybe you would). Perhaps the issue here has to do with faulty object permanence: The younger the individuals the more value is placed on their life, until it crosses into the womb and becomes "out of sight out of mind."

p.s. I didn't realize there were two abortion threads going on at once lol.

That's an excellent question. If I had to make a choice, I would save the baby. It's not unlikely the elderly person would want me to save the baby too. All stories must come to an end, and I personally would rather have mine wrapped up a few pages sooner than I planned than live with the knowledge that my survival came at the cost of someone with their whole life in front of them.

You could also ask whether I would save a pregnant woman over a woman not carrying who were about the same age, knowing nothing else about them. I would save the pregnant woman, on the assumption that she both wants to live and give birth, so it would be a twofer. Or how about if I had a choice to save a baby or an embryo in a tube?

This isn't about whether it's desirable that a viable fetus survive to be born hypothetically. It's about whether that is enough to justify forcing a woman to give birth against her will, regardless of the woman's ability to carry to term safely, the circumstances of the impregnation, her ability to raise a child, the welfare of other children she may already have, her ability to climb out of poverty, or anything else. That is, whether forcing a woman to give birth against her will (forced labor!) is more important than her human dignity.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Personhood is something we all lack, is it not? It must be ascribed by a governing body.

Nope

---

In the event of a fire, would you save an elderly person over an infant on the basis that they have a story, loved ones, and a coherent inner life? I don't think you would, given that society places value on children (but maybe you would). Perhaps the issue here has to do with faulty object permanence: The younger the individuals the more value is placed on their life, until it crosses into the womb and becomes "out of sight out of mind."

p.s. I didn't realize there were two abortion threads going on at once lol.

That's an excellent question. If I had to make a choice, I would save the baby. It's not unlikely the elderly person would want me to save the baby too. All stories must come to an end, and I personally would rather have mine wrapped up a few pages sooner than I planned than live with the knowledge that my survival came at the cost of someone with their whole life in front of them.

You could also ask whether I would save a pregnant woman over a woman not carrying who were about the same age, knowing nothing else about them. I would save the pregnant woman, on the assumption that she both wants to live and give birth, so it would be a twofer. Or how about if I had a choice to save a baby or an embryo in a tube?

This isn't about whether it's desirable that a viable fetus survive to be born hypothetically. It's about whether that is enough to justify forcing a woman to give birth against her will, regardless of the woman's ability to carry to term safely, the circumstances of the impregnation, her ability to raise a child, the welfare of other children she may already have, her ability to climb out of poverty, or anything else. That is, whether forcing a woman to give birth against her will (forced labor!) is more important than her human dignity.

Indeed his scenario fails to give agency to the characters

[John 6IX Breezy]

That's an excellent question. If I had to make a choice, I would save the baby. It's not unlikely the elderly person would want me to save the baby too. All stories must come to an end, and I personally would rather have mine wrapped up a few pages sooner than I planned than live with the knowledge that my survival came at the cost of someone with their whole life in front of them.

I think the reason we would choose an infant over an elderly person (and you hinted at something similar) has something to do with Thomas Nagel's famous argument: Death is evil insofar as it deprives us of life. Therefore, the younger you are the more life you can be deprived of, and the more tragic the death. And abortion, I would argue, logically deprives an organism of the most life possible.

ps. I hadn't thought about your pregnant vs nonpregnant scenario before, and I think its a question that reinforces my object permanence argument, given that a pregnant woman can be visualized in a way that an embryo cannot. Therefore, I suspect that someone who would be fine with a two-month abortion on paper, would nevertheless be inclined to save a woman that is pregnant over her twin sister that is not.

[Belacqua]

it's something a fetus lacks.

Do you have an argument for why this is so? Or is it something you just know?

How would you persuade someone of this?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I think the reason we would choose an infant over an elderly person (and you hinted at something similar) has something to do with Thomas Nagel's famous argument: Death is evil insofar as it deprives us of life. Therefore, the younger you are the more life you can be deprived of, and the more tragic the death. And abortion, I would argue, logically deprives an organism of the most life possible.

Already countered this 

ps. I hadn't thought about your pregnant vs nonpregnant scenario before, and I think it's a question that reinforces my object permanence argument: a pregnant woman can be visualized in a way that an embryo cannot. Therefore, I suspect that someone who would be fine with a two-month abortion on paper would nevertheless be inclined to save a woman that is pregnant over her twin sister that is not.

No, it really doesn't

And again there is that lack of character agency.