Another curious argument: Two types of "early fetus"

Moral status is "contingent" on whether you were wanted and have a future. Ha, who knew?

Princeton prof Liz Harmon talking to James Franco and Eliot Mchaelson:

“What I think is actually among early fetuses there are two very different kinds of beings. So, James, when you were an early fetus, and Eliot, when you were an early fetus, all of us I think we already did have moral status then. But we had moral status in virtue of our futures. And future of fact that we were beginnings stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die in early pregnancy due to abortion or miscarriage. And in my view that is a very different kind of entity. That’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person and it doesn’t have moral status.” https://www.mediaite.com/online/wat...zarre-defense-ever-for-early-stage-abortions/

nota bene said:

Moral status is "contingent" on whether you were wanted and have a future. Ha, who knew?

Princeton prof Liz Harmon talking to James Franco and Eliot Mchaelson:

“What I think is actually among early fetuses there are two very different kinds of beings. So, James, when you were an early fetus, and Eliot, when you were an early fetus, all of us I think we already did have moral status then. But we had moral status in virtue of our futures. And future of fact that we were beginnings stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die in early pregnancy due to abortion or miscarriage. And in my view that is a very different kind of entity. That’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person and it doesn’t have moral status.” https://www.mediaite.com/online/wat...zarre-defense-ever-for-early-stage-abortions/

Click to expand...

It's a fairly silly argument, but then again IMO most arguments based on malleable morality (which, while this lady is Pro-Choice, seems to be the bent of various Pro-life presentations) are neither sound not valid.

I prefer the more scientific assessment of trying to determine when the cells develop enough differentiation to demonstrate consciousness, and then viability outside the womb.

The former trait (consciousness) to draw the line for voluntary abortion, the latter trait (viability) to combat natural miscarriage.

nota bene said:

Moral status is "contingent" on whether you were wanted and have a future. Ha, who knew?

Princeton prof Liz Harmon talking to James Franco and Eliot Mchaelson:

“What I think is actually among early fetuses there are two very different kinds of beings. So, James, when you were an early fetus, and Eliot, when you were an early fetus, all of us I think we already did have moral status then. But we had moral status in virtue of our futures. And future of fact that we were beginnings stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die in early pregnancy due to abortion or miscarriage. And in my view that is a very different kind of entity. That’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person and it doesn’t have moral status.” https://www.mediaite.com/online/wat...zarre-defense-ever-for-early-stage-abortions/

Click to expand...

Yep. The Herrenrasse tells early!

nota bene said:

Moral status is "contingent" on whether you were wanted and have a future. Ha, who knew?

Click to expand...

NOT THE PROF, OBVIOUSLY. As explained below.

nota bene said:

Princeton prof Liz Harmon talking to James Franco and Eliot Mchaelson:

“What I think is actually among early fetuses there are two very different kinds of beings.

Click to expand...

NOT QUITE. There is any entity that exists, as one kind of being, which simply means "has existence". The door of an automobile is/has that kind of being (so is the whole auto). The second kind of being is a person. No human fetus can possibly, even remotely, qualify as that kind of being --not counting the arbitrariness of Law, it takes months and months after birth for humans to begin to qualify as persons. Therefore the prof is wrong, right off the bat; all human fetuses are only the has-existence kind of being.

Princeton prof Liz Harmon said:

So, James, when you were an early fetus, and Eliot, when you were an early fetus, all of us I think we already did have moral status then.

Click to expand...

FALSE. Since morals are Subjective, Arbitrary, and Relative, the word basically means nothing that is Objectively Sensible. Even when a common definition of "moral" is used --as a reference to "right" or "wrong"-- that word doesn't apply to unborn humans. They merely exist! Just like rocks exist. There is nothing inherently "right" or "wrong" about that!!!

ALSO, the prof is making another extremely common error of abortion opponents. There is no "you" existing at the fetal stage. You are not your body! Your body existed, but you are a mind, and that did not begin to exist until after birth. We know this because of the existence of "feral children". Persons are actually made by Nurture (if made at all); they are not born of Nature.

Princeton prof Liz Harmon said:

But we had moral status in virtue of our futures.

Click to expand...

FALSE. This is the error of equating Potential with Actual. Since they are actually two different things, they can be treated differently. I invite the prof to obtain a lottery ticket, and then to pay taxes on the potential winnings, if she is so certain that Potential should be treated like Actual.

Princeton prof Liz Harmon said:

And future of fact that we were beginnings stages of persons.

Click to expand...

IRRELEVANT, as explained above. Today's computers are the beginnings stages of future True Artificial Intelligences, but that doesn't mean we can't arbitrarily scrap any of today's computers.

Princeton prof Liz Harmon said:

But some early fetuses will die in early pregnancy due to abortion or miscarriage.

Click to expand...

SOME MIGHT DIE FROM FETAL RESORPTION. And at least 50% of all unborn humans die even before the fetal stage begins.

Princeton prof Liz Harmon said:

And in my view that is a very different kind of entity. That’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person

Click to expand...

IRRELEVANT. As explained above.

Princeton prof Liz Harmon said:

and it doesn’t have moral status.”

Click to expand...

JUST LIKE ALL OTHER UNBORN HUMANS. I don't really care if the prof is pro-choice or not; I do care about arguments making sense!

nota bene said:

Moral status is "contingent" on whether you were wanted and have a future. Ha, who knew?

Princeton prof Liz Harmon talking to James Franco and Eliot Mchaelson:

“What I think is actually among early fetuses there are two very different kinds of beings. So, James, when you were an early fetus, and Eliot, when you were an early fetus, all of us I think we already did have moral status then. But we had moral status in virtue of our futures. And future of fact that we were beginnings stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die in early pregnancy due to abortion or miscarriage. And in my view that is a very different kind of entity. That’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person and it doesn’t have moral status.” https://www.mediaite.com/online/wat...zarre-defense-ever-for-early-stage-abortions/

Click to expand...

quantum abortion...

nota bene said:

Moral status is "contingent" on whether you were wanted and have a future. Ha, who knew?

Princeton prof Liz Harmon talking to James Franco and Eliot Mchaelson:

“What I think is actually among early fetuses there are two very different kinds of beings. So, James, when you were an early fetus, and Eliot, when you were an early fetus, all of us I think we already did have moral status then. But we had moral status in virtue of our futures. And future of fact that we were beginnings stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die in early pregnancy due to abortion or miscarriage. And in my view that is a very different kind of entity. That’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person and it doesn’t have moral status.” https://www.mediaite.com/online/wat...zarre-defense-ever-for-early-stage-abortions/

Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me. But, then again, I am pretty adept at discerning nuance.

nota bene said:

Moral status is "contingent" on whether you were wanted and have a future. Ha, who knew?

Princeton prof Liz Harmon talking to James Franco and Eliot Mchaelson:

“What I think is actually among early fetuses there are two very different kinds of beings. So, James, when you were an early fetus, and Eliot, when you were an early fetus, all of us I think we already did have moral status then. But we had moral status in virtue of our futures. And future of fact that we were beginnings stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die in early pregnancy due to abortion or miscarriage. And in my view that is a very different kind of entity. That’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person and it doesn’t have moral status.” https://www.mediaite.com/online/wat...zarre-defense-ever-for-early-stage-abortions/

Click to expand...

Question:

Does every existing entity (inert objects or living) have moral status? By what criteria does society decide? Is moral status absolute? Or do circumstances and conflicting interests make a difference?

calamity said:

Makes perfect sense to me. But, then again, I am pretty adept at discerning nuance.

Click to expand...

Why does that make perfect sense?

Removable Mind said:

Why does that make perfect sense?

Click to expand...

As I read the quote, it describes the difference between a fetus carried by a mother who wants to carry it to term versus one who wants to terminate it. Hence, an attacker killing the former is murder; whereas the mother aborting the latter is just a legal medical procedure.

calamity said:

As I read the quote, it describes the difference between a fetus carried by a mother who wants to carry it to term versus one who wants to terminate it. Hence, an attacker killing the former is murder; whereas the mother aborting the latter is just a legal medical procedure.

Click to expand...

I get the two scenarios.

What I don't get is...

Why is "moral status" at the heart of both of these two scenarios?

I'm thinking that professor Harman is suggesting that women shouldn't have the right to abort because in her opinion there's no distinguishable moral status difference between a fetus that dies during the commission of a crime and one that's aborted.

Actually....

Sounds like another "women who have abortions are devoid of morals" rant by a pro-life advocate.

Removable Mind said:

I get the two scenarios.

What I don't get is...

Why is "moral status" at the heart of both of these two scenarios?

I'm thinking that professor Harman is suggesting that women shouldn't have the right to abort because in her opinion there's no distinguishable moral status difference between a fetus that dies during the commission of a crime and one that's aborted.

Actually....

Sounds like another "women who have abortions are devoid of morals" rant by a pro-life advocate.

Click to expand...

I didn't read the article, just the clip in the op--and, probably just a portion of that. I probably just drew my conclusions from what I read, which to me was what I said above.

nota bene said:

Moral status is "contingent" on whether you were wanted and have a future. Ha, who knew?

Princeton prof Liz Harmon talking to James Franco and Eliot Mchaelson:

“What I think is actually among early fetuses there are two very different kinds of beings. So, James, when you were an early fetus, and Eliot, when you were an early fetus, all of us I think we already did have moral status then. But we had moral status in virtue of our futures. And future of fact that we were beginnings stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die in early pregnancy due to abortion or miscarriage. And in my view that is a very different kind of entity. That’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person and it doesn’t have moral status.” https://www.mediaite.com/online/wat...zarre-defense-ever-for-early-stage-abortions/

Click to expand...

No moral status is applied to the unborn on my part. They have no ability to form an intent for good or bad. They are not 'good or bad.'

Moral judgement is applied to women who have choices regarding their unborn.

And legal status is applied by the highest courts to people. And none to the unborn.

"Having a future" is something any animal has at any stage.

So to me, the question is, why would that future be valued more in the unborn human than the born human (the woman's future?)

Removable Mind said:

Question:

Does every existing entity (inert objects or living) have moral status? By what criteria does society decide? Is moral status absolute? Or do circumstances and conflicting interests make a difference?

Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that this society thinks itself even remotely capable of determining anything relating to morality.

Lursa said:

No moral status is applied to the unborn on my part. They have no ability to form an intent for good or bad. They are not 'good or bad.'

Moral judgement is applied to women who have choices regarding their unborn.

And legal status is applied by the highest courts to people. And none to the unborn.

"Having a future" is something any animal has at any stage.

So to me, the question is, why would that future be valued more in the unborn human than the born human (the woman's future?)

Click to expand...

It has never been about anyone's future or morality.

Lursa said:

No moral status is applied to the unborn on my part. They have no ability to form an intent for good or bad. They are not 'good or bad.'

Moral judgement is applied to women who have choices regarding their unborn.

And legal status is applied by the highest courts to people. And none to the unborn.

"Having a future" is something any animal has at any stage.

So to me, the question is, why would that future be valued more in the unborn human than the born human (the woman's future?)

Click to expand...

That isn't my question. Mine is about equality rather than more or less.

nota bene said:

That isn't my question. Mine is about equality rather than more or less.

Click to expand...

Well then I'll clarify my last sentence, which would be more on target: I still attribute no moral status or character to the unborn but see no difference in valuing the future of the unborn at any stage up until it is able to survive outside the womb (so not necessarily born). So I see it as equal in all it's stages through gestation up until survivability.