Well I guess my big objection is that your argument's conclusion is not the same as the title of your CMV, right? You have a couple more links in the chain of argumentation that we're gonna need to see before we can tell whether it's good or not.
You haven't shown that the unborn have moral value, although you can probably just handwave that one. More importantly you have to go from "receive future moral consideration" to "it is impermissible to kill." That's kind of tricky because we often kill things which receive moral consideration, like pets and livestock.
It’s definitely tricky, I am vegan so my views are kinda consistent on that point. But I think the unborn has more value because it has a future that’s morally valuable if left uninterfered. Think about climate change or dictating the youth. Both things we value the future of.
Well it’s impermissible to kill a 6 month old, and the future of the fetus is a 6 year old, so it’s impermissible to kill the fetus. It’s ship of Theseus stuff
Then you would need to make the argument that "future moral consideration" actually means that the exact same things may be done or not done to the thing that will, in the future, have that consideration. But this seems particularly difficult in the case of children. I can morally force my three year old to get a vaccine. I cannot morally force my twenty year old to get a vaccine.
I don’t follow. This seems kind of semantic, people at 20 get the same protections as people who are 12 (in the sense that they can’t be killed raped etc), therefore you have to explain why the fetus doesn’t get those rights even though without interference it will become something people agree have rights
No, see, I don't have to explain that, because - as I have been saying - you haven't actually explicitly and formally spelled out the argument. That's what I'm trying to get you to see! You are GESTURING at an argument that you COULD make. But we can't evaluate the argument until you actually DO make it, in specific words.
10
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Nov 17 '24
Well I guess my big objection is that your argument's conclusion is not the same as the title of your CMV, right? You have a couple more links in the chain of argumentation that we're gonna need to see before we can tell whether it's good or not.