tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post5569850896772428697..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: A review of "Why Abortion is Immoral"Ronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-63053406157489585492017-11-29T22:41:24.135-08:002017-11-29T22:41:24.135-08:00@Ron:
> Neither sperm-and-egg nor blastocyst n...@Ron:<br /><br />> Neither sperm-and-egg nor blastocyst nor embryo have brains, and so are not yet habitat for memes, and so destroying them is not morally wrong.<br /><br />That's rather short-sighted. If a choice now will result in less meme-habitat in one year, is it ok because the damage (or lack of … maximization?) is not immediate? But the whole point of moral systems is to take us Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1838153442835020642017-11-26T12:46:05.721-08:002017-11-26T12:46:05.721-08:00@Peter:
See my follow-up post.@Peter:<br /><br />See my <a href="http://blog.rongarret.info/2017/11/why-abortion-is-not-immoral-followup.html" rel="nofollow">follow-up post</a>.<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-20004354504882677332017-11-26T11:24:52.066-08:002017-11-26T11:24:52.066-08:00@Ron:
> The process by which babies are incubat...@Ron:<br />> The process by which babies are incubated artificially may or may not involve something that resembles "implantation." Human facsimiles of natural process are often quite different from the originals. Airplane wings don't flap.<br /><br />But airplane wings do provide lift; they have to or the airplane won't fly. Similarly, an artificial uterus would have to Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-62115588552791136712017-11-25T22:52:22.165-08:002017-11-25T22:52:22.165-08:00@Peter:
> I already addressed this
I was addr...@Peter:<br /><br />> I already addressed this<br /><br />I was addressing a very specific comment that Publius made:<br /><br />> it is necessary that it achieve implantation into the uterus<br /><br />By which I presumed he meant a woman's uterus. That is necessary now, but it may not be necessary in the future. The process by which babies are incubated artificially may or may not Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-31506668408975310112017-11-25T13:45:35.311-08:002017-11-25T13:45:35.311-08:00@Ron:
> You don't want to have to re-invent...@Ron:<br />> You don't want to have to re-invent your entire moral framework when someone figures out a way to build an artificial uterus.<br /><br />I already addressed this: look for the appropriate event in the process of developing a baby in an artificial uterus, the one that corresponds to implantation. (There would have to be one since an artificial uterus would have to provide an Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-28428832690460690262017-11-25T11:33:17.493-08:002017-11-25T11:33:17.493-08:00@Ron:
> Abby and Brittany Hensel are conjoined ...@Ron:<br />> Abby and Brittany Hensel are conjoined identical twins who share a single body. (Look them up if you've never heard of them. They are quite remarkable.) They were conceived, but they never split<br /><br />Interesting; this is an edge case that means I wasn't quite correct when I said the relationship between an implanted embryo and a human future of value is always Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-72192155612082838642017-11-25T10:58:03.791-08:002017-11-25T10:58:03.791-08:00@Ron:
> I don't think that has ever been in...@Ron:<br />> I don't think that has ever been in dispute.<br /><br />Not by reasonably thoughtful pro-choice advocates, no; they are the ones who take what I called the "strict" position. But I don't think all pro-choice advocates are reasonably thoughtful.<br />Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-16125998165458130812017-11-25T08:44:36.879-08:002017-11-25T08:44:36.879-08:00@Publius:
[2 of 2]
> Um, so what? If it doesn...@Publius:<br /><br />[2 of 2]<br /><br />> Um, so what? If it doesn't split, it's 1 thing, and if it does split, it's 2 things. I don't see how this affects the moral argument at all.<br /><br />It affects the argument because nature is full of weird edge cases that don't fit your tidy view of how the world works. Abby and Brittany Hensel are conjoined identical twins whoRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-6028685336802356612017-11-25T08:42:30.100-08:002017-11-25T08:42:30.100-08:00@Publius:
[1 of 2]
> This is what I hear you ...@Publius:<br /><br />[1 of 2]<br /><br />> This is what I hear you saying: "I don't like the conclusion, so the argument must be wrong."<br /><br />It's not just me who doesn't like this conclusion. The right to contraception has been established in the U.S. since 1965.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut<br /><br />> Another option for Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-7304838463392700522017-11-25T08:04:34.445-08:002017-11-25T08:04:34.445-08:00@Peter:
> it still seems obvious to me that *s...@Peter:<br /><br />> it still seems obvious to me that *some* weight should be given to the fetus and its potential future<br /><br />I don't think that has ever been in dispute. The only question is who gets to decide whether those interests have sufficient weight to justify forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will.<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-6993022934320261382017-11-25T02:36:39.843-08:002017-11-25T02:36:39.843-08:00This is the future calling
(part 2)
@Ron:
>The...<b>This is the future calling</b><br />(part 2)<br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>There is absolutely no basis for stipulating that a blastocyst is a thing-with-a-future-of-value while sperm-and-egg separately are not.</i><br /><br />Note that it is <i>you</i> that brings up blastocysts. Marquis discusses fetuses. In paragraph 65 he writes:<br /><br /><i>Since a fetus possesses a property, the Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-53112786379281120982017-11-25T02:07:23.306-08:002017-11-25T02:07:23.306-08:00Don't like the conclusion? Argument must be wr...<b>Don't like the conclusion? Argument must be wrong somehow!</b><br />(Part 1)<br /><br />@Ron<br /><i>>So what is wrong with this argument?<br /><br />The problem is that the argument implies not only that abortion is wrong, but that contraception is wrong too, because it destroys the same future-of-value that abortion does.</i><br /><br />This is what I hear you saying: "I don'Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-82039669685085130452017-11-24T23:31:52.500-08:002017-11-24T23:31:52.500-08:00@Ron:
> are you yourself convinced by it?
I...@Ron:<br />> are you yourself convinced by it?<br /><br />I'm not sure; as I said, I'm still considering. While I'm at it, I'll throw a few more observations in:<br /><br />The pro-choice arguments that I've seen fall into two general categories, which I'll call "permissive" and "strict". The permissive argument is basically that a woman has a right Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-81065810692639874532017-11-24T22:48:46.644-08:002017-11-24T22:48:46.644-08:00@Peter:
I must say I'm impressed. That is pr...@Peter:<br /><br />I must say I'm impressed. That is probably the most compelling argument I have ever heard on the anti-abortion side.<br /><br />I'm curious, are you yourself convinced by it? (I'm not, but explaining why is going to take a whole 'nuther post.)<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-30139010269735550782017-11-24T22:40:57.590-08:002017-11-24T22:40:57.590-08:00@Don:
> Things change at every point in develop...@Don:<br />> Things change at every point in development, and there is nothing philosophically magically about conception, in terms of the very long process of creating a biological machine that has human adult capacity.<br /><br />I tried to capture what I think picks out implantation, in terms of this developmental process, in my response to Ron just now.Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1283125028468703952017-11-24T22:39:31.418-08:002017-11-24T22:39:31.418-08:00@Ron:
> you still have to come up with some ac...@Ron:<br />> you still have to come up with some account of *why* it suddenly becomes morally wrong to kill an embryo when it is implanted<br /><br />Because that's when its future, the future that it is morally wrong to take away, becomes well-defined enough to have moral weight. (Bear in mind that I'm not necessarily saying I agree with this; I'm still considering. But I think Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-90626260352250189432017-11-24T22:20:26.103-08:002017-11-24T22:20:26.103-08:00@Don:
> Give him credit
I thought I did :-)
...@Don:<br /><br />> Give him credit<br /><br />I thought I did :-)<br /><br />@Peter:<br /><br />> I see one obvious way to attempt to: put the bright line at implantation<br /><br />Well, that's an interesting idea. I've never heard anyone propose it before. But there's still an obvious problem: you still have to come up with some account of *why* it suddenly becomes morally Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-68484461617916119992017-11-24T22:18:26.155-08:002017-11-24T22:18:26.155-08:00But Peter, you seem to admit that reality doesn...But Peter, you seem to admit that reality doesn't actually have a "bright line", and so we're just making a choice for convenience, to balance the different moral intuitions. As long as you're willing to do that, there really shouldn't be much problem with the current US Supreme Court suggestion of various rights based on trimesters.<br /><br />But Marquis had hopes forDon Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-51787200185290575692017-11-24T21:16:04.320-08:002017-11-24T21:16:04.320-08:00I agree that Marquis doesn't adequately addres...I agree that Marquis doesn't adequately address your objection in his paper, but I see one obvious way to attempt to: put the bright line at implantation, rather than conception.<br /><br />(Btw, I use the term "bright line" here to indicate a choice made for purposes of defining a moral standard, not a claim that there actually is a "real" intrinsic bright line. I agree Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-19973480039228363062017-11-24T17:41:45.989-08:002017-11-24T17:41:45.989-08:00Yeah, I immediately (as soon as I got to his actua...Yeah, I immediately (as soon as I got to his actual proposal) thought of the contraception thing too. Give him credit: he knows that counterargument is fatal, and attempts to address it at the end. But it's a poor patch, and it dooms his whole theory.Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.com