I'm curious if you'd take issue with hundreds of thousands of Europeans migrating to another continent en masse, perhaps entering countries illegally, and availing themselves of the cultures and systems built by the native populations. After all diversity is a good thing, and perhaps they could use a little.

I ask because the immigration question always seems to flow one way. But it is my belief that there is a fine line between mass migration, colonialism, and gentrification. Mexico city, for example, has been met with an influx of "digital nomads" from the United States, leading to a rise in housing costs for the native populations. Recall the Boer migrations throughout Africa, with the displacement of the original peoples and the bloody wars that resulted. In modern times we have Israeli settlers expanding into Palestine. Diversity is so good that original populations can no longer afford to live there, or worse, are met with violence.

All in all, displacement of the original population is one of the key issues, but whenever someone broaches the topic he is often belittled and dismissed for feeling that way.

Sexist too. What about black women?

She doesn’t need to buy their votes.

ABC fact checks the Kamala campaigns lies about Trump’s most recent town hall.

Kamala introduces racist policies, forgivable loans so long as you have a certain skin-color. Media silent.

Edit: Sorry, wrong thread.

Do you have an aversion to the term zygote?

Not if it classifies a stage of human development. But when it’s posited as a different being, certainly.

Now you are. Morality is strictly to do with how we treat one another. A Zygote is not a 'one another'. This is probably the only intuition of Banno's I think needs no defense. This just, as noted, leads to some hefty bullet-biting.

But it is genetically distinct from the mother. If it’s not another, what is it? An organ? A parasite?

At what point the zygote becomes a 'person', or variably 'baby', 'a human' etc... etc... These are the 'facts' on which most people's positions rely(i have excluded those absolutist positions that are doctrinaire rather than reasoned) and they aren't stable or lets say 'complete' enough to objectively inform us of anything within that grey area as to why we would place the flag 'there'. Yes, we know a lot about zygotes and their development, but which way-point would you choose? It sounds like for you it's conception. Others might be implantation, heartbeat, viability, pain reception among others. But none of these are hard-and-fast in terms of telling us when a 'person' comes into being (or, when that might be morally relevant). I can only really understand taking conception to be the salient point if one is to be, lets say, overly cautious, because of the above indeterminacies. If you're not copping to that, I'm unsure how to make sense of it. But this doesn't seem to me a moral question, anyway. It's similar to saying "well, I can't figure out the precise moral facts, so I'll give it a wide berth". I can't see a real problem in that, other than tryig to make others assent (which you're not doing, so that's fine).

A zygote is a very brief stage of development of an individual human organism, and it will be the same particular entity, a human being, from fertilization onward.

We wouldn't know, or care. That's not a moral consideration.

I wasn’t aware that one needed to know and care if he was being treated morally.

None of this is the case, and the quote you responded to points each out. There is no incoherence. There's just potentially uncomfortable bullet biting.
THe 'vagueness' of the terms doesn't exist. The facts are vague. The terms refer to them. This is no point at which a zygote 'becomes a person'. It does not exist. It occurs somewhere in the grey area and any position has to choose an arbitrary point here if that's what the view is based on.
(though, its very, very much worth noting that 'arbitrary' is not apt here. There are reasons which very much restrict what's acceptable on most views except absolutists ones (i.e killing an infant is also fine, or there is no form of contraception which is acceptable).

What facts are vague? I ask because we actually know a lot about zygotes.

Well, ethics is about what we do. And I'm off to an art exhibit and lunch with friends.

Not something that can be done with a zygote.

Every single one of you were zygotes. Luckily no one treated you with such disregard.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is no single point, much like with the Sorites paradox. It's acceptable when it's a zygote or blastocyst or embryo, not acceptable when it's due to be delivered in a day, and in between there's a large grey and ambiguous area as it develops more and more into a human like us.

The only thing grey and ambiguous about it is the position. The vagueness of the terms used to describe it and the arbitrariness of the acceptable time to kill indicate this. This is because the position lends itself to incoherence. I do not think an incoherent belief should be used to justify killing a human being.

There is much more to an organism than its genetic makeup. There are very real, significant, and obvious biological differences between myself and a zygote. Your decision to only consider an organism's genetic makeup is not less arbitrary than my decision to also consider these other important aspects of an organism's being. But I do think that your claim that only an organism's genetic makeup has moral relevance is an absurd one.

The biological difference between you as a zygote and you as an adult was that you were in a different stage of your development. You never once deviated from being this particular human, you still occupy the same location in space and time, no matter what nouns you use to identify the state of your development.

I never once claimed an organism’s genetic makeup has moral relevance. I’ve mentioned many times that I’m speaking about members of the species homo sapiens. I believe members of the species homo sapiens have moral relevance. I’ve never considered the genetic makeup only; I thought it was clear that I was speaking of the entire human organism, because I’ve said as much.

Yes, I’m using the language in the hope that you know what they mean. I’m not sharing with you meaning, or anything weird like that. If we could share meaning, or the words conveyed meaning, you’d understand what I meant even if you didn’t understand the language.

No, you apply your own understanding and meaning to the words. You can do this because you acquired language in your formative years, not because I passed you some meaning with this text.

As long as you understand that a human fetus would develop those complex cognitive functions—indeed was in the process of development—had you not killed it, had you not deprived it of the opportunity. Flies do not.

That’s why the abortionist is treading in murky moral waters. At what stage in that development is killing her acceptable? Do all the complex cognitive functions need to be developed at the same time, or does one or the other function take precedence? It’s all too arbitrary for my tastes, so I personally need a solid unit of value, and its existence suffices enough for me.

So why does anything with our genetic makeup deserve to live?

There is nothing else with our genetic makeup. There is only one extant species of human beings.

None of the things I mentioned are genetically similar to human beings in any way.

Yet these words need shared meaning between individuals for this to be achieved. It need not be ectoplasm, but it needs an inter-subjectivity whereby the words mean roughly similar things. Thus, uniqueness itself is something one must understand to understand others are unique. But then, there is a sameness already built into the language meaning.

And thus, what is this shared "space"? Well, it isn't location, as you say. But there is a sort of type of consciousness that humans share.

"Shared meaning", "consciousness", "inter-subjectivity", "uniqueness", "sameness"—all of these words lack any referent in time and space, despite what the grammar suggests. As such, there is nothing of the sort. Their existence can be seriously questioned, and should they be used as indications of worth and value, the discovery of their non-existence risks leading one to nihilism.

So what distinguishes a human organism with human DNA and a non-human organism with human DNA, and why is the distinction the measure of whether or not it is wrong to kill it?

Which non-human organisms with human DNA are you talking about?

And to be a member of the species homo sapiens is to have the appropriate ("human") DNA? So when you say that it is wrong to kill a foetus because it is human you are simply saying that it is wrong to kill a foetus because it has human DNA.

I fail to see how you get from "the foetus has human DNA" to "therefore it is wrong to kill a foetus".

Many things have human DNA, like sperm or a pool of saliva. Human beings have more than DNA.

Yes. As related to my reply to Hanover above, what a human is depends on how we use the word "human", and how we use the word "human" is a contingent fact about the English language, open to change. If we use the word "human" to refer to anything with human DNA then embryos are human. If we use the word "human" only to refer to sufficiently developed organisms with human DNA then embryos are not human. It is a mistake to commit to some kind of essentialist view of being human such that we can be wrong in (not) using the word "human" to refer to embryos.

And whether or not it is morally acceptable to kill an embryo does not depend on whether or not it is conventional in the English language for the word "human" to refer also to embryos.

We need to look to more concrete facts. These concrete facts are biological, neurological, and psychological. Simply having human DNA is not sufficient biological grounds to entail that the thing "deserves" to live. Whereas being able to think and feel and so on is sufficient biological, neurological, and psychological grounds.

I use the term "human being" in the sense that it is a member of species homo sapiens, whether it is developed or not. A fetus is not of some other species. If a human lifecycle begins at conception, then we are speaking of human life and no other. This is an existentialist and "animalist" view rather than an essentialist view.

The essentialist view would be the personhood one. One is a person so long as she has the essential psychological traits. It implies that persons were never embryos, never in a coma, and other absurdities.

A "sufficiently developed" member of the species homo sapien is no definition of human being that I've ever heard.

Yes, it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being; that’s what such a principle entails. But contrary to your assumption, I wouldn’t think that you believe it is never wrong to kill an innocent human being. You’ve clearly stated otherwise: it is fine to kill an innocent human being if he doesn’t have thoughts and feelings, or isn’t a person.

The differences are, as far as I can tell, you place moral value on what human beings can do, while I place moral value on what a human being is. Is that fair?

I don’t think anything should be outlawed.

What are these "same reasons"?

Because I would say that it is wrong to kill other humans because it is wrong to kill humans with thoughts and feelings and wants. Embryos and (early stage) foetuses don't have thoughts or feelings or wants. They are more like the brain dead living on life support.

It deprives her of life, a future, and the world of her presence. It devalues life, it inflicts unnecessary harm…but mostly it’s unjust. She innocent. She doesn’t deserve to be killed.

Having more or less thoughts and feelings doesn’t make anyone more or less deserving of life or death. So in my mind any such distinction only serves to comfort the killer, not the one who is having his life snuffed out. That’s why the whole ordeal is a purely selfish one.

a) "X is a human" means "X has human DNA"
b) It is never acceptable to kill a human
c) Therefore, it is never acceptable to kill something with human DNA

That’s not my argument, nor have I ever heard it before. Here it is: it is wrong to kill an innocent human being. A fetus is an innocent human being. Therefore, it is wrong to kill a fetus. Which premise would you disagree with?

The biggest and most relevant difference is that a baby is no longer being carried in the womb of its mother, and so for the most part the mother's bodily rights are no longer an issue.

Another significant difference is that the thalamocortical connections that are required for consciousness do not develop until ~26 weeks of pregnancy.

What if the mother wants the child. Does the zygote then deserve a chance at life and become worthy of protection, or is it still disposable?

You've asserted that it is wrong to kill anything with human DNA (except in self-defence, etc.). You haven't justified this.

Yes, it is wrong to intentionally kill a fetus for the same reasons it is wrong to kill any other human being. You can disagree with the premise that a fetus is a human being, or that it is not wrong to kill human beings, but it’s difficult to reasonably do so.

It was an embryo, but now isn't. There is a very real biological difference between a baby and an embryo. That very real biological difference has moral relevance and is why it is wrong to kill a baby but not wrong to kill an embryo.

Now we’re on to something. What biological differences make it not wrong to kill an embryo, but wrong to kill a baby?

So are you now saying that it isn't wrong to kill a human embryo? Or are you refusing to show me what makes killing a human embryo wrong? This is why you are special pleading; you demand that we show you what makes something a person but refusing to show us what makes killing a human embryo wrong.

I’ve already described my reasoning and the entities it applies to as best as possible.

And if I ask you to show me what makes killing a human embryo wrong?

I would refrain as best as possible from positing phantom properties and folk biology.

There is a very real biological difference between an embryo and a baby. They might share the same kind of DNA, but there is much more to an organism than its DNA.

The baby was an embryo. No embryo, no baby, no human being. But yes, organisms aren’t DNA.

Yes, it’s the woman’s choice. Let’s hope she makes the moral one.

Echarmion asked "is this supposed to mean that there's no evidence for personhood?"

You responded with "I understand, and have no problem with either term in common usage, but if I were to ask you to point to whatever it is you're referring to you would invariably point to your body, which has existed and grown since conception. That's what I'm hung up on."

I am simply explaining that being (or not being) able to point to something has no bearing on whether or not someone is a person, just as being (or not being) able to point to something has no bearing on whether or not something is wrong.

Sometimes you have to show, not tell. I ask you to point to what you’re referring to and you point to a human being. I agree that’s a human being. If I ask you to show me what makes it a person and you have to go off searching into your mind instead of revealing some or other biological fact about that human being, then you don’t have anything but your own thoughts. If you cannot point to any distinction then there is no distinction.

If you’re going to condemn some human beings to death because you’ve relegated them to the status of non-person, you better have something better than your own thoughts and feelings.

I don't understand your reply. You say there is no means to determine personhood, yet (if I follow you correctly) you agree that a country's legal system has to make that decision.

I forget the context but I don’t think a country’s legal system has to make the decision.

So you claim that killing foetuses is wrong but don't need to point to some measurable property of being wrong because "wrong" is an adjective, and others claim that foetuses aren't people and need to point to some measurable property of being a person because "person" is a noun?

Such an argument from grammar is special pleading.

I don’t understand why I need to point to a property of “wrongness”. I also never said someone needs to point to a measurable property of being a person. I was saying there is no such measurable property, so it makes zero sense that I would say you need to point to one.

My argument this whole time is that it’s wrong to intentionally kill a human being (unless he deserves it or it is in self-defense), to deprive him of life. A fetus is a human being.

But surely culture influences individuals, no? Conservatives love this point. So do liberals, but in their own way (exaggerated "Wokeness" and "religious fundamentalism").

A lot of people do blame culture, certainly.

One cannot be against a culture or blame it for blameworthy acts because only individuals can perform blameworthy acts. One has to avoid holistic methods for determining blame or guilt or innocence and use individualistic methods, or else one will always be wrong and therefor unjust.

That doesn't really address the question.

Sorry, I didn’t know this was an interview.

You’re making nouns out of my adjectives. I don’t believe wrongness and rightness and rights are measurable properties of anything.

When I confer to you a right, I simply declare your right and then refuse to interfere in whatever activity I have given you the right to. I also work to defend your right from others who might intervene. So when I confer to you the right to eat, for example, I don’t stop you from eating. I also defend you (or at least ought to) from others who would intervene.

No one receives a right property upon being conferred a right.

To me it seems like an arbitrary starting point.

The beginning of a life is an arbitrary starting point?

So forgive me for being confused.

Are you now suggesting that it can be wrong to kill a foetus and that a foetus deserves the chance to live even if they haven't been granted the right to live?

There needs to be some basis for granting rights in the first place.

But that's the whole point of this particular line of discussion. The laws have to make that distinction - there needs to be some means to determine whether any given collection of cells and protoplasm is legally a person or not.

Sure, but parents and abortionists also make that distinction with or without the law.

So a foetus doesn’t have a right to live unless some authority declares and confers that right?

Then what exactly are you trying to argue here? Because with the above in mind all we can do is describe the fact that in some places and at some times abortion is legal and in other places and at other times it is illegal.

Anyone can confer a right. And I was just explaining my view of rights, like you asked.

Most of us are quite capable of understanding what “person” means, that rocks, embryos, and flies are not people, and that adult humans (and intelligent aliens) are people. The type of “personhood” that you think doesn’t exist isn’t the type of personhood that any of us are talking about.

I’m sorry but there is hardly any consensus as to what a person is. I don’t think it’s a good idea to start killing living things on such a flimsy basis.

The very real and obvious observable differences between rocks, embryos, and flies on the one hand and born humans on the other hand.

The fact that an embryo has roughly the same DNA as me and will eventually grow into an organism like me simply isn’t sufficient grounds to grant it the same rights as me or even just the right to live at the expense of the rights of the woman who must carry it to term.

I wasn’t necessarily speaking about rights. I was saying they deserve a chance to live and that it is wrong to kill them.

That's not a right. That's a supposed description of a right. The words are not the thing they describe. I'm not asking you to point to words that describe a right; I'm asking you to point to a right.

As it stands it amounts to me pointing to the word "person" and saying that I'm pointing to a person.

Those are rights. It is a bill of rights. A deceleration of human rights is a declaration of rights, without which there are no rights. It is up to those who confer rights to uphold them and defend them in others. Human beings have no rights other than those that have been declared and conferred by others.

Killing a 40 year old isn't wrong just because "he is deprived of a future against his will". It's wrong because "he is deprived of a future against his will and is a person". The "and he is a person" has moral relevance. It is not wrong to deprive a foetus of its future against its will because a) it's not a person, and b) it doesn't even have a will.

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being. Therefor no one can pick and choose with any certainty when one is or isn’t a person. So it’s an arbitrary distinction, a value judgement one applies to others without any reason or evidence to do so. How can one say a fetus is not a person when its “personhood” might be present and operating in proportion to its development? Is a sonogram a “personhood” detector?

The Lockean approach to making the distinction between man and person was theological in origin, had its grounds in the transmigration of souls and God. Those grounds are now gone, but for some reason the Lockean legacy persists. So what grounds are there to make the distinction now?

I think that's not quite true because as Kant pointed out, the idea of some society where you exist together with others is at the basis of moral philosophy. Future people cannot be interacted with even theoretically. Their interests have no bearing on any current situation - they can't affect anyone nor can their interests be affected.

Fetuses do not exist in a void. Fetuses can be interacted with. If they couldn't, they wouldn't be killed.

So a right is a piece of paper with ink markings? That doesn't seem right.

That’s one of their manifestations, sure. Grab any bill of rights and point to a right, you’ll have your answer in what it consists of. If there is more to it, go ahead and reveal it.

And that's the point of departure. It is argued that it is not wrong to deprive a foetus (or embryo) of the chance to become a person. Or at the very least that there is insufficient evidence or reasoning to support the claim that it is wrong.

It’s wrong to kill a fetus for the same reason it is wrong to murder a 40 year old. Both are deprived of a future against their will. Both have their bodies destroyed against their will. The world and the community are deprived of their presence against their will. In any case, any evidence or reasoning to support the claim that it is wrong to kill a 40 year old can be applied to any other human being in any other stage of its life, including early development.

I think it’s the other way about: there is insufficient evidence or reasoning to support the claim that killing a fetus is morally permissible. The only reason I can think of is for reasons of self-defence.

If it is not wrong to kill a fetus, is it not wrong to kill a fetus for personal gain in your view? Can I grow fetuses in order to harvest their organs and sell them, in your view? Why or why not?

Think of the difference between a wave and still water. All waves are water but not all water is a wave. The body (specifically the brain) has to be doing something for there to be a person. If the brain isn't doing that thing then there is no person, which is why neither a corpse nor an embryo is a person.

Maybe that’s it. Maybe “person” is a doing rather than a thing. The having of feelings, thoughts, memories etc. are doings, after all. Humans person. It could be said that fetuses do not person, at least yet, just as they are not walking.

But I do not think that justifies killing a human being because he is not, at present, performing that act. To do so to a fetus would deprive it of the chance to ever do so.

I should add that I'm also somewhat perplexed by your questioning of personhood but your acceptance of rights. Can you point to rights? If not then why expect someone to be able to point to personhood as if not being able to is a gotcha?

Some things just can't be pointed to.

You can point to a right if you write it down. You can speak them. But my view of rights is a little different, as I wrote about here.

Is this supposed to mean that there's no evidence for personhood? Or are you just hung up on the word "soul"? I've already said I'm not using it to refer to anything esoteric or mystical. You can just use another word like "mind" or "self".

I understand, and have no problem with either term in common usage, but if I were to ask you to point to whatever it is you're referring to you would invariably point to your body, which has existed and grown since conception. That's what I'm hung up on.

This is an ad-hominem argument. You're only questioning my moral integrity, but you're not actually making any arguments, moral or otherwise.

From my perspective, you're the one avoiding an uncomfortable truth, that being that we draw lines between what is and is not a person, and these lines are not handed down to us by divine decree.

True, it is very uncomfortable for me to watch people make these distinctions. This is because they are not based on much, are often arbitrary, differ across individuals and cultures, yet can justify the worst in human behavior. So, for me, it is no longer about what these distinctions are (for there appear to be none), but why they are being made. My theory as to the "why" in regards to abortion is dehumanization.

I can't see it from your position because there is no evidence for it. It cannot be shown that personhood or soul or "I" enter or leave the body at any point, and this includes during prenatal development.

As I have argued, making such distinctions is utilized as a process of dehumanization. It couldn't be otherwise. Clearly you require it so as to avoid an uncomfortable truth. The idea that someone becomes a non-person upon injury to the brain, or that a fetus is merely parasite or cyst, are efforts to eschew the conscience so as to make their killing palatable. I don't think turning off life-support is to intentionally kill a person because the doctors were in fact keeping him alive, but to eviscerate a fetus is. These acts are not to be taken lightly. But wherever they are, even celebrated, is barbarism.