The trouble with a biologically based morality, nature/evolution doesn't care one hoot about morality, it is only concerned with replicating the genes. Which means rape and infanticide are a equally valid way to achieve this.
Having said that I think biology is where what we have constructed as morality, came from. But from my POV, trying to make it abstract, pushes it beyond what the system is capable of. It would be like basing modern business negotiation strategy on medieval chivalry. It just wasn’t meant to do this.
In way all I’m asking is like consistency in a business contract. If you have set clauses in the contract you cannot then pick and choose where you apply them or then introduce irrelevant excuses to try to change things after the fact.
Personhood and bodily autonomy are those two clauses.
Personhood tells you what has a right to life in general.
A baby doesn't meet that clause so saying anything other than what pertains to personhood is irrelevant.
I know its not the system you use, but I just want to point out is just the flaw in this system.
Actually, personhood for the baby is legally relevant, but you know that. On my view, personhood is irrelevant to the abortion debate. It really is just a value calculation on a continuum, so no special cases. And yes, that means that infanticide is morally permissible in situations where the cost/benefit analysis comes out negative. But those situations are quite rare in nature and in society. The mother generally considers a live baby to be quite valuable. In starvation situations, not so much, and for good reason--if there isn't enough food to go around, it's better to let a baby die and try again later, rather than risk both infant and mother starving. The goal is to get the mother's genes into the next generation with the best possible odds of success. Each individual organism is subordinate to that goal.
Viewing abortion and infanticide in terms of resource investments and benefits allows us to consider personhood and rights-based arguments in a broader framework and explains what we actually see happening in the world. You view bodily autonomy as a special case. I see it as just another factor in a cost/benefit analysis. An important one, to be sure, but not a difficult or inconsistent one. The mother is calling the shots. If her cost/benefit analysis for a particular fetus comes up short, that's pretty much all there is to it. And that works within a moral system, because it's how we all play the morality game--to enhance our genes' survival odds. Morality is nothing more than a survival strategy for individuals. You do what you can to help others on the chance they'll return the favor, directly or indirectly. Ordinarily, morality is a win-win game. Unfortunately, the mother/fetus relationship has a strong zero-sum element. Childbirth is usually a win-win (the mother gets her genes into the next generation and the fetus gets to live), but because it's a parasite/host relationship, sometimes it's win-lose (one dies or is disabled) or lose-lose (both die or are disabled). And only the pregnant woman is in a position to make that call. The fetus gets no vote, because it has a lot less to lose and because it can't participate in decision-making. Think of it as a lifeboat.
I'll see if I have the time to go through this but I don't see why I have to hold your hand in everything.
Whenever I come across a term or concept that I'm not familar with I try to track it down. If you want to stop and claify something sure, within reason, but if you are too lazy to check things don't expect me to spoon feed you.
Just so you know, one must deal with existential rights as some persons maybe artificial, so there is no point talking about continued life. Sorry that just slipped in.
I never was much for being a teacher or spoon feeding. Maybe if you at least bothered doing your own research or knew the basics you would know the pro's and con's of the argument linking rights and desires etc but as most here I see no real interest in doing that.
Again point taken though I should take more time, but the task of teaching ethics 101 to you guys is harder than I thought. Quite easy to nitpick esp opponents when dealing with peopel who have little idea of the basics.
I never was much for being a teacher or spoon feeding.
That's fine. I've yet to see evidence you have anything to teach. From your name dropping, I could assume you are well read on the ethics of abortion, but that doesn't mean you are any good at absorbing the information or understanding the arguments in context of one another.
I'll be the one that says it: you seem to be the one with a poor grasp of ethics here. Go ahead and attack me for it, I can take it.
For me the abortion debate has two basic justifications.
1. Only persons are given full or equal moral consideration as they have sophisticated cognitive desires for continued existence. A rock has no desire/care to continue to exist system, persons do. Therefore you cannot harm a rock or alternatively do it wrong.
A foetus isn’t person so it isn’t given existential rights to life because it has no desire to live nor can be harmed, has no grounding for equal moral standing, therefore it can be killed.
2. Bodily autonomy. In general we aren’t required to support or donate bodily organs to anyone without our consent. An unwanted foetus doesn’t have consent therefore it can be removed. # note from my understanding of RvW if a foetus is a person bodily autonomy is irrelevant.
These combined or alone abortion is justified. I of course disagree.
In general one has that right, but as David Boonin argued -who is Pro-Choice philosopher- in principle that right can be overriden IFthe foetus has equal moral consideration, and is placed in a situation of dependency, thus owed compensation.
BTW from what I understand in RvW it was stated if the foetus was in fact a person that would change the ruling. The point being if placed another moral equal basic moral consideration entity eg infant in your home during a blizzard then say this is my property and forced it outside, the point that you have property rights is irrelevant you and you have a duty of care until another can take care of the entity. So it already has legal and moral precedent.
To me it's first and foremost a statistical issue.
Legalize it, and X babies will be aborted in safe conditions.
Criminalize it, and X babies will be aborted in unsafe conditions, and Y women will die in the process.
Since both are positive numbers, X < X + Y. Thus I contend that making abortion legal is the humane way to deal with the problem. You could always argue that making it legal increases its 'desirability', and I'd agree. Yet I think this factor would not be enough to reverse the inequality (of course, we'll never have reliable statistics on illegal abortions, so I admit I could be wrong on this).