″...that the fetus (and I’m just using the scientific terminology, here), has value equal to that of a grown person in moral considerations?
Well now, this technique is straight-out dishonesty. You’re not “just using the scientific terminology”. You have a reason for rejecting the other person’s use of “baby”, and that reason is that you want to use words to draw a moral line in reality at the point of birth. Notice that you also increased the distance by comparing the “fetus” not to a newborn baby but to an adult. But you cannot make distinctions appear in the real world by drawing them on the map.
Your tone must be that of one asking for clarification on a fact.
That is, your tone must be a lie. You are not asking for clarification of a fact.
You have a reason for rejecting the other person’s use of “baby”, and that reason is that you want to use words to draw a moral line in reality at the point of birth.
Don’t know how you came to this, but nowhere do I take a stance on the issue. There’s the ‘Not you’ and the ‘You’, with the former thinking it’s wrong, and the latter wanting to know the former’s reasoning and position.
You can just as well use the word ‘baby’; only using a neutral word as decided by a third party (namely science and scientists), besides ‘the baby’ or ‘it’, help in distancing them as well as their perception of you from the issue. It’s difficult for someone to perceive an issue clearly when, every time it comes to mind, they’re reminded, “Oh yes, this I believe.” Subtly separating that associative belief of the other party (parties) allows them to evince their true reasons with greater accuracy. Harry did the same (unintentionally) by setting Draco into an honestly inquisitive state of mind in HPMOR when investigating blood (not ad verecundiam, just an example).
I fully agree you cannot manifest terrain by drawing on the map; this is why I suggest comparing the fetus to a grown person. A new human has the potential to become a grown human, and I, in assuming the position of the ‘Not you’, guessed this was a reason they may value the fetus. In another example they may say, “No, they’re just a baby! They’re so cute! You can’t kill anything cute!”
From a consequentialist point of view (which appears to be the same as the utilitarian—correct me if I’m wrong, please), it doesn’t matter whether they are cute unless this is a significant factor to those considering the fetus’ mortality. A fetus’ potential ‘cuteness’ is a transient property, and a rather specious foundation upon which to decide whether the fetus’ shall have a life. What if they’re ugly, grow out of the cute, are too annoying to the mother? Then their reason for valuing the baby operates on a relative curve directly proportional to the baby’s cuteness at any point in time; I’m not sure what it’s called when a baby is wanted for the same reasons one might want a pet, or a stuffed animal, but don’t think it’s rational. Babies are living humans.
From a religious perspective, I am unaware of any religion that affords separate moral rights to children than from men, besides the possible distinction from an innocent, helpless man and a morally responsible one. Thus, if this be their rationale, then consideration of the fetus’ as having full moral rights equal to that of a grown person would be a given prerequisite. Without consideration as a person, a fetus’ is rendered excluded from the moral protection of many a religion. From a Bayesian perspective, the probability of their belonging to a value system wherein human lives are exclusively valued above all others’, outweighs the other possibilities—or so I reasoned (if the logic’s unsound, please inform).
Thus, the likening of the fetus unto a grown person.
And, on your last point, you assume the ‘You’ would have an agenda; you cannot, as you well reason, honestly and neutrally steel-man their argument with an agenda. Sure, the ‘You’ may subtly be presenting other paradigms, however ‘tis in the best interests of all parties that none remain as ignorant after the argument as they were before; this is a thread on improving productivity of arguments, after all. Making their argument into a steel-man necessitates the full or mostly full understanding the other party’s (parties’) position; how can you steel-man what you do not understand? And so you honestly ask for clarification, using distancing hypotheticals to probe the truth of their position out of them, or framing their argument with your own words, using an interrogative tone requesting clarification on the fact of their belief (note the possible dangers of the latter as explicated elsewhere in this comment train).
There’s the ‘Not you’ and the ‘You’, with the former thinking it’s wrong, and the latter wanting to know the former’s reasoning and position.
Ok, the “You” person isn’t you. Sorry for conflating the two. (Probably because “You” is portrayed as the voice of reason, while “Not you” is the one given the idiot ball.) But if I look just at what the “You” person is saying, ignoring the interior monologue, they come across to me as I described. And if they speak that interior monologue, I won’t believe them. This is a topic on which there is no neutral frame, no neutral vocabulary. Every discussion of it consists primarily of attempts to frame the matter in a preferred way. Here’s a table comparing the two frames:
fetus unborn child
right to choose right to life
pro-choice pro-abortion
anti-choice anti-abortion
You can tell what side someone is on by the words they use.
No problem. If someone with your objection were to raise their concerns with the ‘You’ at the time of intercourse, I would recommend calmly requesting agreement on a word both agree as neutral; actually, this would be an excellent first step in ensuring the cooperation of both parties in seeking the truth, or least wrong or disagreeable position on the matter. What that word would be in this instance, besides fetus, I haven’t a clue—there may be no objectively neutral frame, from your perspective, however in each discourse all involved parties can create mutually agreed upon subjectively neutral vocabulary, if connotations truly do prove such an obstacle to productive communication. I am still for fetus as a neutral word, as it’s the scientific terminology. Pro-life scientists aren’t paradoxical.
Well now, this technique is straight-out dishonesty. You’re not “just using the scientific terminology”. You have a reason for rejecting the other person’s use of “baby”, and that reason is that you want to use words to draw a moral line in reality at the point of birth. Notice that you also increased the distance by comparing the “fetus” not to a newborn baby but to an adult. But you cannot make distinctions appear in the real world by drawing them on the map.
That is, your tone must be a lie. You are not asking for clarification of a fact.
Don’t know how you came to this, but nowhere do I take a stance on the issue. There’s the ‘Not you’ and the ‘You’, with the former thinking it’s wrong, and the latter wanting to know the former’s reasoning and position.
You can just as well use the word ‘baby’; only using a neutral word as decided by a third party (namely science and scientists), besides ‘the baby’ or ‘it’, help in distancing them as well as their perception of you from the issue. It’s difficult for someone to perceive an issue clearly when, every time it comes to mind, they’re reminded, “Oh yes, this I believe.” Subtly separating that associative belief of the other party (parties) allows them to evince their true reasons with greater accuracy. Harry did the same (unintentionally) by setting Draco into an honestly inquisitive state of mind in HPMOR when investigating blood (not ad verecundiam, just an example).
I fully agree you cannot manifest terrain by drawing on the map; this is why I suggest comparing the fetus to a grown person. A new human has the potential to become a grown human, and I, in assuming the position of the ‘Not you’, guessed this was a reason they may value the fetus. In another example they may say, “No, they’re just a baby! They’re so cute! You can’t kill anything cute!”
From a consequentialist point of view (which appears to be the same as the utilitarian—correct me if I’m wrong, please), it doesn’t matter whether they are cute unless this is a significant factor to those considering the fetus’ mortality. A fetus’ potential ‘cuteness’ is a transient property, and a rather specious foundation upon which to decide whether the fetus’ shall have a life. What if they’re ugly, grow out of the cute, are too annoying to the mother? Then their reason for valuing the baby operates on a relative curve directly proportional to the baby’s cuteness at any point in time; I’m not sure what it’s called when a baby is wanted for the same reasons one might want a pet, or a stuffed animal, but don’t think it’s rational. Babies are living humans.
From a religious perspective, I am unaware of any religion that affords separate moral rights to children than from men, besides the possible distinction from an innocent, helpless man and a morally responsible one. Thus, if this be their rationale, then consideration of the fetus’ as having full moral rights equal to that of a grown person would be a given prerequisite. Without consideration as a person, a fetus’ is rendered excluded from the moral protection of many a religion. From a Bayesian perspective, the probability of their belonging to a value system wherein human lives are exclusively valued above all others’, outweighs the other possibilities—or so I reasoned (if the logic’s unsound, please inform).
Thus, the likening of the fetus unto a grown person.
And, on your last point, you assume the ‘You’ would have an agenda; you cannot, as you well reason, honestly and neutrally steel-man their argument with an agenda. Sure, the ‘You’ may subtly be presenting other paradigms, however ‘tis in the best interests of all parties that none remain as ignorant after the argument as they were before; this is a thread on improving productivity of arguments, after all. Making their argument into a steel-man necessitates the full or mostly full understanding the other party’s (parties’) position; how can you steel-man what you do not understand? And so you honestly ask for clarification, using distancing hypotheticals to probe the truth of their position out of them, or framing their argument with your own words, using an interrogative tone requesting clarification on the fact of their belief (note the possible dangers of the latter as explicated elsewhere in this comment train).
Ok, the “You” person isn’t you. Sorry for conflating the two. (Probably because “You” is portrayed as the voice of reason, while “Not you” is the one given the idiot ball.) But if I look just at what the “You” person is saying, ignoring the interior monologue, they come across to me as I described. And if they speak that interior monologue, I won’t believe them. This is a topic on which there is no neutral frame, no neutral vocabulary. Every discussion of it consists primarily of attempts to frame the matter in a preferred way. Here’s a table comparing the two frames:
You can tell what side someone is on by the words they use.
No problem. If someone with your objection were to raise their concerns with the ‘You’ at the time of intercourse, I would recommend calmly requesting agreement on a word both agree as neutral; actually, this would be an excellent first step in ensuring the cooperation of both parties in seeking the truth, or least wrong or disagreeable position on the matter. What that word would be in this instance, besides fetus, I haven’t a clue—there may be no objectively neutral frame, from your perspective, however in each discourse all involved parties can create mutually agreed upon subjectively neutral vocabulary, if connotations truly do prove such an obstacle to productive communication. I am still for fetus as a neutral word, as it’s the scientific terminology. Pro-life scientists aren’t paradoxical.