Thanks for making this thread about me. Always a joy.

But there are organisms, unambiguously people, who lack these attributes as well. — Hanover

People without those capacities? Ok. They'd be people, then.

Yep, a blastocyst is not a people.

What is salient, for those with at least a modicum of wit, is that a blastocyst is a "thin-walled cavity", the reason that it is called a blastocyst; a "sprout-bladder"; and that it is unambiguously not a person, not a human being with memories, needs, and preferences.

Worth also pointing out that it is far from clear what "thoughts" are, yet the term is used with gay abandon throughout Martin's paper.

There's reasons we tend to talk about utterances, sentences, and assertions rather than thoughts. One can present some particular utterance, sentence or assertion for inspection. Not so much a thought.

Those who say "Frege distinguished the thought qua logical content from the assertoric force attached to it when claimed to be true" might do well to say instead "We can distinguish what a sentence is about from what is being done with that sentence". That single act dissipates Martin's concerns.

And there's the further claim that in carrying out (2), we see (3) the deep structure of everyday language and reasoning, the underlying logical form. — Srap Tasmaner

It's worth, I hope, pointing out that this treats the "underlying logical form" as if it were found in, rather than intended by, an utterance.

(3) requires an acceptance of logical monism- the notion that there is one true logic that provides the "underlying logical form" of language.

A better view would be that we can choose our "everyday language use and reasoning" so as to conform to some logical structure and thereby infix logical structure into our utterances. That is that logical structure is not to be found in our utterances but imbued by way of making what is being said clear.

Logical structure is not found in, but given to, our utterances. There are no rules of thought, but there are better and worse arguments.

A fetus is not a cyst: that is scientifically and blatantly false. — Bob Ross

Come on, Bob. Yes, a foetus is not a cyst. A blastocyst is a cyst. The embryo develops in part of the blastocyst. It is considered a foetus from 8 to 10 weeks on. Here's some stuff to help you brush up on your anatomical terminology.

A cyst is not a person. Those who think it is tend to be trusting their invisible friends to suport their opinion. Others have saner views.

does a good job of setting out Singer's account, involving preferences. I have mentioned the capabilities approach. These views disagree on detail, but agree on timing.

Even if we agree that "a human being acquires rights that a person gets because their nature sets them out as being a member of a rational species", the question arrises as to when the cyst becomes a member of that rational species.

Have you read it? — tim wood

Yep. Also Dobbs. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Implied rights are not so firm, as recent history demonstrates:

We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Con­stitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, in­cluding the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. — Alto, The Supreme Court’s draft opinion on overturning Roe v. Wade

If it where as you claim, it would still stand.

PhilPapers 2020 asked

Abortion (first trimester, no special circumstances): permissible or impermissible?

Quite overwhelmingly, professional philosophers are in favour of abortion on demand in the first trimester.

And again, god is involved, with the strongest correlations going to belief in design and theism.

I agree the Roe-Wade decision was a pretty poor basis for such things. Explicit law is needed.

I don't find that position despicable. — Hanover

Dear Hanover, nor do I. What is despicable is forcing others to conform to what folk think their invisible friend wants. By all means, may 'merca have a sane ethical and political discussion, without divine intervention.

Sure. The mother carries the child, and so has the greater part. The father can play their part by convincing the mother that they will provide sufficient care and love to child and mother that she decides not to have the abortion. No more.

Yes, it is. Yet this reading of Singer is there. As a result, folk with disabilities wisely reject such naked consequentialism.

To be sure, it is with good reason! The capabilities approach has a stronger and broader notion of personhood. It incorporates the social model of disability quite explicitly, while Singer holds to the medical model...

Excuses. The failure of the USA to correct the decline of its democratic institutions is a global tragedy.

Yes, another thread; unfortunately even naming him in some circles, in which his arguments would be beneficial, will finish conversations. He is persona non grata in disability circles.

When pro-choice people have enough power to create an amendment... — frank

Given that this is around sixty percent of your population, why is it that they do not have "the power"?

Or is yours a failed democracy.

It's a good argument, but unfortunately Singer mucked his credentials with some rubbish about disability. The capabilities approach strikes me as an improvement. There is a neat summary of the approach here: Abortion, Dignity and a Capabilities Approach

This also recognises the nuance @frank is looking for.

Do you even own a weapon of any kind? — frank

I don't need to.

Have a look down the page from Pew Research linked above. Opposition to abortion is overwhelmingly from white evangelical protestant republican conservatives.

What was that you said about Democracy?

You can't even justify believing 2+2=4. That doesn't diminish your civil rights. — frank

Seriously? So you have given up on rationality. Fine. See you on the ramparts.

They think it's immoral. The reason that matters is a little thing called democracy. — frank

They think it is immoral, but their justification for that is shite.

You know that if there were are referendum in 'Merka, abortion would be legal.

It's dishonorable and morally repugnant to suggest that they don't have a right to their feelings. — frank

I didn't deny their feelings, just their excuse. What they think their invisible friend says is no justification for forcing their view on others. If they do not agree with abortion, that's fine, they do not have to have one.

This argument is actually offensive — frank

Tough. What folk think their invisible friend says is no basis for moral choice.

so stop calling it a cyst — frank

You seem to be having trouble with the fact that the foetus develops over time.

Go over it again, if you will. "Murder" is a legal term. Folk who think abortion is murder, despite it not being so on the state legal code, perhaps might defend their view by appeal to the supposed laws of their invisible friends. They call it murder because their invisible friend says so.

And by the time a heart develops, we are no longer looking at a cyst. Yet we are still not looking at a person.

Point was it's a cyst with a beating heart. — frank

Your terminology is muddled here, but it seems you are intent only on being a bit of a dick, so I'll leave you to it.

Why do you care about the heart, though? Does that give you pause? — frank

I don't. You raised "heart", not me.

...wrongful killing... — frank

"They" think it against god's law, perhaps.

They don't like to do them before 12 weeks. — frank

That doesn't seem to be so.

If you decide to have an abortion, it is best to have it as early as possible.

It is safe, simple and low-risk when done under 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Slavery is ok if it's legal? — frank

Abortion is not murder if it is legal.

It's a cyst with a beating heart. — frank

Not to begin with.

They just think it's murder. — frank

Murder is unlawful killing. It's not murder if abortion is legal.

All that may be so, and yet it remain useful to sometimes separate what a sentence is about from what one is doing with it.

To be sure, it is a mistake to think that there is one correct analysis of any given utterance. But of course that does not mean we can't or shouldn't engage in analysis.

All this by way of again rejecting logical monism.

I did. A cyst is not a person. Try not to read so selectively.

Does that help? — Bob Ross

No. A cyst is not a person.

Merkins.

Hmm. Or you could... cooperate....

There is no transcendent source material. — Tom Storm

You are pretty much in agreement with Moore and Foot, then.

I'll have my folk bill you for the therapy session.

begged the question — Shawn

I'm not sure you know what that means, in a philosophical context.

I'm really not following any of this.

So you have been reading quantum again. No good will come of such foolishness.

if concepts are truth-apt under universal quantification... — Shawn

I've no idea what that might mean. I'll leave you to it.

...this is again nominalism — Shawn

How?

I've no clear notion of what this has to do with quantification.

I don;t see how one could disagree with universal quantification...

I'm asking you to apply Moore's open question to your definition of "good". It's a meta ethical request. I suspect that you realise the problem, and that's why you won't oblige me.

Seems to me - without reading your book - that the bit you are missing is how ethics intrinsically involves not what you want, but how you relate to other folk.

But it's up to you whether you choose to reply or no.