Do I have to see a difference between zygotes and adults in order to understand the significance of what you are saying? I think the answer has to be yes. — Fire Ologist

I don’t understand this either. If you can’t see a difference between these two photos then you should get your eyes checked.

Is that a choice? — Fire Ologist

Yes. Some say that one lone organ isn’t an organism, but that 5 of them (brain, heart, lungs, kidneys, and liver) working to keep each other alive are. That’s an arbitrary decision (even within science), not something that is a discoverable fact capable of verification or falsification by empirical investigation.

Is there any physical/biological fact in this context we both have to accept? — Fire Ologist

I don’t quite understand the question. We (or at least biologists) pretty much fully understand the genetics and morphology and physiology of both zygotes and adults (except for the relationship between the brain and consciousness).

are you saying a human being is an organism with enough structure to feel pain, or to just feel or perceive anything, or do you need to be able to want things and be self-aware too? — Fire Ologist

Essentialism is false. Whether we call zygotes, corpses, the brain dead. or babies born with anencephaly “human” is a choice, with no moral significance.

So can I assume there is some thing called “intelligent being” that we are talking about? — Fire Ologist

There are organisms, like me, that are self-aware, can feel pain, can want things, and so on. It is wrong to kill organisms like this.

Zygotes aren't self-aware, they can't feel pain, they can't want things. Nothing about them warrants moral consideration; they are just a tiny mixture of chemicals. It is acceptable to abort them if that is what the woman wishes.

What is the distinction between these two phrases? — Fire Ologist

"X is intelligent therefore X is human" is a non sequitur; something can be intelligent but not be human (e.g. an alien).

It is not the case that I am human because I am intelligent; it is only the case that I am human and I am intelligent.

The reason it's wrong to kill me is because I'm intelligent, not because I'm human; it would be wrong to kill intelligent non-humans too.

You are saying a human being is something that has/is a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-consciousness/intelligence. Correct? — Fire Ologist

No, I'm saying that (most) humans have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence, and that it is wrong to kill things with a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence.

Non-humans (e.g. aliens) might also have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence, and so it would be wrong to kill them even though they're not human.

Zygotes don't have a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence and so it is acceptable to kill them even if they're human.

Whether or not something is human is irrelevant. With respect to killing an organism, it is that organism's degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence that is morally relevant, not it's taxonomy.

That's not true of every single-celled organism because do not abort other single-celled organisms. — NOS4A2

We can, and do, kill non-human organisms, including single-celled organisms. You admit to killing flies. Is any of this wrong? If not, why are single-celled humans special? Physically they only differ from non-humans in their DNA and the manner in which they are created. So why is their DNA and manner of creation morally relevant?

That's who you're killing. That's the victim. How is it morally irrelevant? — NOS4A2

That's true of every single-celled organism. I want you to explain what makes single-celled humans special.

But this single-celled organism came about different than other single-cells organisms. The act and the beings who created it also make it human. Its creation, its development, its biology, its surroundings, and yes its DNA, make it a certain kind of single-celled organism. — NOS4A2

And why is that morally relevant?

I think much, but not all, of the controversy on the moral (second) question is because of bad or no answer on this metaphysical/biological (first) question. — Fire Ologist

That's where I disagree. I don't think the first question matters. I'm not an essentialist. There is no such thing as some necessary and sufficient set of conditions that must be satisfied for an organism to "count" as human. We simply use the word "human" to refer to a group of similar organisms, but disagree on whether or not zygotes and embryos and foetuses are similar enough to us to warrant the use of the term "human" to refer to them. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer; it is a linguistic convention either way.

To better explain this, consider these three sentences:

1. It is wrong to kill X because X is an innocent human
2. It is wrong to kill X because X is an innocent frog
3. It is not wrong to kill X because X is an innocent frog

These are all non sequiturs. One cannot go from "X is a member of species Y" to "therefore it is wrong/not wrong to kill X". At the very least each of these needs some additional supporting premise, such as:

4. It is wrong to kill an innocent human
5. It is wrong to kill an innocent frog
6. It is not wrong to kill an innocent frog

But then each of these must be justified. We need some other additional supporting premise, such as:

7. It is wrong to kill an innocent human because an innocent human has/is Y
8. It is wrong to kill an innocent frog because an innocent frog has/is Y
9. It is not wrong to kill an innocent frog because an innocent frog doesn't have/isn't Y

Y is what matters. When we determine what Y is we can then ask whether or not zygotes (or frogs, or some extra-terrestrial species) have/are Y.

For me, that Y concerns a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence, etc., and I can use this to judge the moral worth of other organisms, whether they be zygotes, frogs, Kryptonians, or whatever.

Is it not human? because you are forever trying to dismiss that term. — NOS4A2

I don't believe in essentialism. If you want to use the term "human" to refer to any organism – even single-celled organisms – with such-and-such DNA then you're welcome to, but this linguistic practice carries no moral relevance.

If this is all you mean by "human" then the claim "it is wrong to kill innocent humans" is the claim "it is wrong to kill innocent organisms with such-and-such DNA", and this second claim hasn't been justified. What is so special about this DNA?

If you were to argue that it is wrong to kill any innocent organism regardless of its DNA (and so regardless of its assigned taxonomy) then that would be one thing, but the fact that you keep talking about it being human and dehumanization shows that you think there's something special about our DNA, but you refuse to ever explain what or why this is.

You strip away mentally as many human qualities as possible — NOS4A2

What human qualities does a zygote have? It is 46 molecules of DNA wrapped in proteins contained within cytoplasm and a cell wall.

It strikes me that you keep equivocating on the term "human", where you want it to be both a term that just refers to any organism with certain genetic information and also a term that carries moral significance. The former does not entail the latter.

A human zygote isn’t a different thing than a human adult — Fire Ologist

It's not clear what you mean by this. A human zygote is a single-celled organism – 46 chromosomes surrounded by cytoplasm surrounded by a cell wall. A human adult is a multi-cellular organism with a brain and other organs, limbs, and capable of thinking and feeling. In terms of morphology and physiology, there are very real and very significant physical differences between a zygote and an adult. The only "similarity" is that the 46 chromosomes contained within the nucleus of a zygote contain roughly the same DNA as that contained within the cells of some human adult.

So what do you mean by saying that a human zygote is the same thing as an adult? And why is this sense of being the same thing morally relevant?

If it's just about the DNA, then the second question is what matters most. DNA is just a bunch of chemicals. Why is a particular combination of chemicals morally significant?

Say there are two zygotes; one containing chromosomes with human DNA (and so is counted as a human zygote) and one containing chromosomes with frog DNA (and so is counted as a frog zygote). What is it about the former set of molecules that morally distinguishes it from the latter set of molecules?

I think the focus on the single cell is for the insult value. — frank

It's addressing his position. In his own words, "we know that an individual human lifecycle begins at conception, since it cannot begin anywhere else, and any scalpel through the spine or intentional deprivation of essential nutrients after this point is to kill an individual human being."

If it isn't wrong to kill a single-celled zygote then either an individual human lifecycle begins after conception or it can sometimes be acceptable to kill (innocent) humans (e.g. when they are still single-celled zygotes).

They all contain reasons why you accept her choice, not whether the act itself is right or wrong. — NOS4A2

Abortion isn't wrong because it's not wrong to kill single-celled organisms, regardless of what species biologists categorise these single-celled organisms to belong to, and regardless of what these single-celled organisms could grow into.

But I do want to hear the reasoning behind why think it is right to kill a human zygote. — NOS4A2

See my past posts. I ain't going to repeat them.

If it isn’t wrong then is it right to kill human in his early stages? — NOS4A2

If by "right" you mean "morally acceptable", then yes. Having an abortion is morally acceptable.

I've already explained to you in past posts why it isn't wrong to kill a zygote or embryo or early stage foetus. I only interjected now to explain that you were misrepresenting @Banno. He is only saying that having an abortion is morally acceptable; he is not saying that women should have an abortion.

Of course she can do whatever she wants. But she has to choose to do something or not do something. What should she choose? — NOS4A2

Should she run over the apple or the orange? There is no right or wrong decision.

Your can’t say, can you? — NOS4A2

I have said, many times. It is acceptable to have an abortion and it is acceptable to not have an abortion. It is acceptable to have toast for breakfast and it is acceptable to not have toast for breakfast.

Your ethics leave the building on this one question, whether it is right or wrong for a mother to abort her offspring. — NOS4A2

You're not asking if it's right or wrong; you're asking if she should or if she shouldn't. This is a false dichotomy as I have explained very clearly.

You're presenting it as if only one of the choices is morally acceptable, when in fact both are.

The more appropriate comparison is:

There’s a trolly coming down the track, about to split in different directions. A woman stands at the lever and can choose where the trolly can go. Down one track lies an apple. On the other an orange. Which way should she send the trolly?

She may do whatever she wants. There is nothing she should do. Either choice is morally acceptable.

Ought she or ought she not abort her offspring? — NOS4A2

Neither. It's a false dichotomy. Is English not your first language? I'll try to teach you something:

1. She should have toast for breakfast tomorrow
2. She should not have toast for breakfast tomorrow

Both of these are false. Whether or not she will have toast for breakfast tomorrow is her free choice and either decision is morally acceptable.

So:

1. She should have an abortion
2. She should not have an abortion

Both of these are false. Whether or not she will have an abortion is her free choice and either decision is morally acceptable.

It’s a simple question: should she kill her offspring? Should she abort or not? Why or why not? Why can’t you guys answer this? — NOS4A2

She neither should nor she shouldn't. She just may if she wants. What is so difficult to understand?

What were you even asking when you asked "assuming that it is optional, the mother has every right, and no one would intervene, should she kill her offspring?"

Having both "optional" and "should" as part of the same question makes no sense, and you're just confusing matters.

It's not the case that she should and it's not the case that she shouldn't; it's the case that she may.

So the moral pivot point for right killing and wrong killing for you is “intelligence” of the body to be killed or protected?

Is that your position? — Fire Ologist

When "intelligence" is taken to be a general term covering such things as a sufficient degree of self-awareness/consciousness, yes. That's why it's acceptable to kill plants, zygotes, the brain dead, and flies, but not babies.

It's trickier when considering more complex non-human life like cows and dogs, and I'm not averse to vegetarianism being the morally superior position, and that I'm in the wrong in eating meat.

That’s it? You are sufficiently intelligent? — Fire Ologist

Yes. It would be wrong to kill sufficiently intelligent extra-terrestrial life, even though they are not human.

And the reason it would be wrong to kill them isn't because they're Kryptonian or Species X but because they are sufficiently intelligent and capable of suffering and the like.

because that organism is the recipient of your behavior — NOS4A2

That's true of every organism regardless of whether we call it "zygote", "human", or "cow". Labels have no moral relevance.

Are you serious? — Fire Ologist

Yes. "it is wrong to kill X if and only if X is a human" is not a tautology. For some X it might be wrong to kill it even if it isn't human and for some X it might be right to kill it even if it is human.

Separately, most people agree it is usually bad to intentionally kill human beings. — Fire Ologist

And this is where we need to distinguish been an intensional and an extensional reading.

It is not the case that it is wrong to kill me because I am human but that it is wrong to kill me and I am human. It is not the case that it is wrong to kill you because you are human but that it is wrong to kill you and you are human. It is not the case that it is wrong to kill humans because they are humans but that it is wrong to kill humans and they are humans.

It would be wrong to kill us even if we weren't human. It's wrong to kill us because we are sufficiently intelligent organisms capable of suffering and the like.

You can if you want. That's your choice, and it certainly has no moral relevance. An organism just is the physical stuff that it's made of, and that physical stuff is what it is regardless of what, if anything, we call it.

What do I label it if I want to know what kind of animal it is? — NOS4A2

If you want to know what kind of animal it is then look at it and put it under a microscope. Its physical nature has nothing to do with the conventions of the English language.

Are human zygotes human beings?

Unless that is the question you haven’t entered the abortion debate. — Fire Ologist

I've addressed it. The question makes no sense in context. The term "human being" isn't like the term "bachelor" with an explicit set of necessary and sufficient conditions; it's more like the word "game".

Either way, what does zygotes being or not being human have to do with whether or not it is wrong to kill zygotes?

You claimed that we derive moral principles from the question "what is actually good?". We don't, because we can't derive propositions from questions.

Not if you are a lawmaker making policy on when a woman can and cannot decide what to do with her own pregnancy.

Ridiculous argument.

According to you, there could never be a controversy surrounding any abortion. It’s just word games and platonic form manipulation easily avoided by playing other word games. — Fire Ologist

I haven't said that. These are two different questions:

1. Are zygotes human?
2. Is it wrong kill zygotes?

The two are not the same. It can be wrong to kill zygotes even if we don't label them "human" and it can be right to kill zygotes even if we do label them "human".

Exactly right. So what should we call this shape-shifting being? — NOS4A2

When it's a zygote call it a zygote. When it's an embryo call it an embryo. When it's a foetus call it a foetus. When it's a baby call it a baby.

The idea that there must be some label that names/describes it from the moment of conception to the moment of death, and that the existence of this label entails moral facts about, is mistaken.

You can't derive a proposition from a question.

It is problematic because it is circular logic: you are saying that moral judgment X is wrong because moral judgment X seems wrong to you. This kind of thinking, lands you in wishy-washy territory where you can justify anything to yourself so long as you have a strong intuition about it. It's nonsense. — Bob Ross

That is a fundamental problem with all moral claims.

I say that it is right to kill annoying children and you say that it is wrong to kill annoying children. Where do we go from there?

Is "it is right/wrong to kill annoying children" something that can be empirically verified or falsified? Is it something that can be deduced from necessarily true axioms?

Where in time and space does the human being pop into existence? — NOS4A2

You might as well ask when an embryo pops into existence. It doesn't. There's a single-celled organism which we label "zygote" that gradually develops into a simple multi-cellular organism which we label "embryo" that gradually develops into a more complex multi-cellular organism which we label "foetus" that gradually develops into an even more complex multi-cellular organism which we label "human" or "person".

Some might use the label "human" earlier in the development cycle than others, but that's a personal linguistic convention with no philosophical or moral relevance.

What is a new human being, is one of two essential questions at the heart of the discussion. — Fire Ologist

Some people might use the word "human" to mean any living organism with genetics like you and me, and so include zygotes. Some people might use the word "human" to mean any living organism with genetics like you and me and which are multi-cellular, and so exclude zygotes but include embryos. Some people might use the word "human" to mean any living organism with genetics like you and me and which are multi-cellular and which have grown a sufficiently developed body, and so exclude zygotes and embryos and early stage foetuses but include late stage foetuses.

The idea that one of these groups is correct in using the word "human" to mean what they mean and that the rest are incorrect is mistaken. You need to abandon this essentialist view of the world and language.

It is not the case that we all agree on what the word "human being" means and just disagree on whether or not zygotes satisfy the required criteria. Rather, we each use the word "human being" in different ways (albeit with a strong family resemblance), and for some of us the term also designates zygotes and for some of us it doesn't.

This is why most of the arguments made here are non sequiturs. Whether or not it is wrong to kill a zygote does not depend on how we use the word "human being". Either way, a woman's bodily autonomy has precedence over a zygote's life. Whether you call it a human or not, a zygote is still just a single-celled organism, and single-celled organisms regardless of their genetic composition are morally irrelevant.

Yes, one is the reason to conclude the other. If you believe the first the other ought to follow. Does that make sense? — NOS4A2

You have said that rights are not properties of objects; that all that can be said is that we either do or don't grant rights to something.

If whether or not it is wrong to kill something depends on whether or not it has a right to live, and if whether or not something has a right to live depends on whether or not we grant it the right to live, then whether or not it is wrong to kill something depends on whether or not we grant it the right to live.

So arguing over whether or not it is wrong to kill zygotes is arguing over whether or not we grant zygotes the right to live. You grant zygotes the right to live and I don't. So where do we go from there? By your own logic it is not the case that one of us is correct and the other incorrect.

I don’t kill flies because of their physical characteristics but because of what they do. I kill other organisms because I need to eat them, not because they have hooves or fins. But this conversation is about killing members of your own species. — NOS4A2

We're not talking about whether or not we do kill things; we're talking about whether or not it is wrong to kills things.

Why is it wrong to kill (innocent) humans but not wrong to kill (innocent) non-humans? They only differ in their physical characteristics, and according to you it is wrong to judge an organism based on its physical characteristics.

Many parents would disagree with you. So what is your reasoning? — NOS4A2

That single-celled organisms don't deserve anything, regardless of physical characteristics (e.g. genetics).

Any moment to claim a new human being first comes to be after conception (such as birth) is arbitrary, unless you want to pick the moment of self-consciousness or some higher function (in which case you are way after birth). Science has to go on the demonstrable and testable - which is, for a human body, the moment of conception. Conception is one demonstrable limitation in the life cycle of a human being - it is the limitation I call, it's starting point. I see no better moment or time period during which a new human being first comes to be. — Fire Ologist

Two zygotes can fuse into one, creating a chimera. One zygote can split into two, creating twins. The origin and persistence of a personal identity doesn't work in the neat and tidy way that you might want it to.

We can deal with exceptions to the rules later, as when the life of the mother and zygote compete with each other, or other reasons. — Fire Ologist

We are dealing with exceptions. If continued pregnancy will kill the mother then abortion is acceptable. If continued pregnancy will paralyse the mother then abortion is acceptable. If continued pregnancy is not what the mother wants then abortion is acceptable.

As soon as you accept that the zygote's right to live is not absolute – that sometimes abortion is acceptable – the claim "abortion is unacceptable because the zygote has a right to live" is accepted to be a non sequitur. There is always an explicit "unless there are good reasons to abort".

We just disagree on what constitutes good reasons. You might agree that if the mother is at risk of death or paralysis then the reasons to abort are good, but not agree that if the mother doesn't want to continue the pregnancy then the reason to abort is also good.