Newborns are barely different than a small fetus when it comes to making choices, awareness like a human adult, etc. I don’t see it to be consistent to say you value the fetus more after its birth. The fetus once born is as feckless as a lump of cells.

The values folks seem to already know the adult is the most valued and by the time you get to the zygote stage, you obviously have nothing at all that would be valued like the adult. But the phrase “zygote is obviously nothing like the adult” seems to be based only cursory, surface observation, and when this quick treatment is left as good enough for value judgments, it leads to what I see as inconsistent logic (who are all the humans) and inconsistent value judgments (why do we value infants like they are persons like Mrs Smith). — Fire Ologist

Doesn’t resonate with me. But thanks for taking the effort. I’m pretty good with us holding different views on this.

But I’m interested in asking you something else. Where do you sit on euthanasia?

Where do you sit on euthanasia? — Tom Storm

Haven’t really thought about it much. It doesn’t really present any metaphysical questions, and ethics discussions are not worth the effort to me.

Notice I’m more interested in what people think a person is and what people think a new life is in the abortion discussion, but not so interested in talking about the moral implications.

Someone has an abortion, I’m fine with that being none of my business, and leaving the laws to capture that is fine with me too. But someone says a zygote isn’t an early moment in the one life of a human being, a person, and I’m interested in their reasoning.

Notice I’m more interested in what people think a person is and what people think a new life is in the abortion discussion, but not so interested in talking about the moral implications. — Fire Ologist

Cool I respect that and you put your case well. It's not an area that interests me. But I am interested in people who are interested.... if that makes sense.

But someone says a zygote isn’t an early moment in the one life of a human being, a person, and I’m interested in their reasoning. — Fire Ologist

I wouldn't argue that. I'd be happy to say it is a 'potential person', a partial journey towards personhood, if you like and therefore (for me) not as valuable as a full person. That's my call based on some pragmatic values. Not being a practitioner of philosophy, I'm pretty much blind to the infinities this kind of discussion can generate.

There is no organism before conception. A sperm or an egg are specialized human cells, like a liver cell or any other special cell, but they are not organisms. They start something new. But that moment is the rub of the metaphysical question. Conception marks a change. Change reflects difference and becoming and motion. Doesn’t seem like an arbitrary line is drawn at conception to me but I’d love an argument. Conception is a new motion. — Fire Ologist

As far as I can tell everything is in a constant state of change and motion at the molecular, cellular, terrestrial, and celestial levels. I think we mark beginning and ending basically in order to take action and achieve goals.

Many see beginning and endings as conventionally true but ultimately like illusions. I tend to see it that way though I recognize how very limited my perspective is.

It’s an ethical issue, a biological issue, a metaphysical issue, a legal/public policy issue (and all the politicking and ideological virtue signaling that goes with that). By practical, I meant the legal public policy bit. — Fire Ologist

Confusing because you said that you’re pro-choice because abortion policy is a practical issue.

A religious person might say that they’re pro-life because abortion policy is a spiritual issue.

You should be able to answer a basic question like that. Let me try to ask it differently:

1. What do you believe a 'right' is?
2. Do you believe anything has any rights?
3. What has rights (if any)?
4. Do humans have rights?
5. If humans have rights, then what rights do they have?
6. What rights, if any, do human beings in the womb have?

If your theory can't answer these, then it has serious problems.

My issue is the identity of indiscernibles. She’s some other being one minute then a human being the next, while anyone watching this supposed change can see that one organism isn’t replaced by another.

Rather, it is a kind of being or animal or organism whose life begins at this time and ends that time, after which it decomposes. “Viability” is too squishy of a continuity principle for me. I want to be able to point at something and say “that’s a so-and-so” without having to check its vitals. There needs to be a taxonomical term for this being and “human” or “man” suffices.

But I’m still interested to read what other non-human being precedes us. — NOS4A2

But that's the thing. Categories are mental objects that can represent the world as it is only to a degree. Our categories tend to fall apart when we attempt to distinguish one thing from another with finer detail. Astronomers have the same problem in defining what it is to be a planet. This is why I am saying that there is a grey area. Your boundaries might not line up with others, and since there is no clear boundary, it is up to you, and you alone, to decide what you want to do with your boundaries. If you can't even clearly distinguish what it is to be a human in these grey areas, then your foundation for limiting what others can do in these grey areas is not as solid as you think.

These are all good questions, but I don't think it is as relevant to abortion as you probably think it is. Me not helping a homeless person right now is not a violation of their rights---or is that what you are suggesting (essentially)? — Bob Ross

But how far would you go to saving a zygote? I can envision myself maybe running into a burning building to save a person trapped there, but a petri dish or a test tube? No way. Would you put yourself at risk to save a zygote?

All of these scenarios I give are to show we value actual persons infinitely more than one-celled organisms, and I think obvious conclusions can be drawn from that regarding the abortion debate.

Confusing because you said that you’re pro-choice because abortion policy is a practical issue. — praxis

Pro-choice is a public moniker for what I would call Pro-abortion rights. Because we need to make public policy, and no one will ever agree on this, I choose the “pro-choice” public policy route with certain limitations.

A religious person might say that they’re pro-life because abortion policy is a spiritual issue. — praxis

And I’m religious. I’d say to them “ok, what does that mean with regards to when a new human being comes into being, and what is your argument for why abortion should be legal or not?” Soul talk is as arbitrary as the whole consciousness or mind or will talk. Arbitrary to me when it comes to what we can measure in a newborn, a toddler, a zygote.

As far as I can tell everything is in a constant state of change and motion at the molecular, cellular, terrestrial, and celestial levels. I think we mark beginning and ending basically in order to take action and achieve goals. — praxis

I agree. Everything is in a constant state of change. That either means that nothing comes to be as each is changed before it takes hold. Or things take hold and come to be for a short time before they are changed beyond recognition, or I’m wrong and there are some permanent, unchanging things.

If we say “abortion” we have to draw some lines and fix some boundaries. One of them is “human”. If, when it becomes difficult to fix that boundary I just say “everything changes anyway” I can’t say “human” anymore. The issue is perfect in this debate because the fetus has its own clear fixed boundaries, or else a doctor couldn’t identify it and remove it. What is that doctor doing besides motion and change like everything else? What is unlike anything else?

I'd be happy to say it is a 'potential person', a partial journey towards personhood, if you like and therefore (for me) not as valuable as a full person. — Tom Storm

Appreciate your point of view.

What would you say to someone who basically agreed with you, but said they did not find newborns and infants as valuable as full persons? Maybe they don’t want to kill babies or anything, they just think that to be consistent with their own valuation, infants are not as valuable as adults.

And there we have it. Mother’s should kill their offspring when they are cysts. At least we’re out with it.

But that's the thing. Categories are mental objects that can represent the world as it is only to a degree. Our categories tend to fall apart when we attempt to distinguish one thing from another with finer detail. Astronomers have the same problem in defining what it is to be a planet. This is why I am saying that there is a grey area. Your boundaries might not line up with others, and since there is no clear boundary, it is up to you, and you alone, to decide what you want to do with your boundaries. If you can't even clearly distinguish what it is to be a human in these grey areas, then your foundation for limiting what others can do in these grey areas is not as solid as you think.

My concern isn’t so much the taxonomy but the flesh-and-blood entity that you are justifying killing. I don’t require categories to tell me when it is or isn’t appropriate to take a life, and I don’t need to dehumanize someone. Simple justice and dignity suffices to inform how it is appropriate to treat another living being.

So if it isn’t human life what kind of life would you suggest it is?

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.

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?

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?

I do understand, I’m just asking why you can’t answer the question when we all here have the capacity to discern whether or not someone else should perform some behavior or not perform some behavior. Ought she or ought she not abort her offspring?

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 normative question. Of course it isn’t true or false.

I’ll put it in a language you might understand. There’s a trolly coming down the track, about to split in different directions. A mother stands at the lever can can choose where the trolly can go. Down one track lies her offspring. On the other is nothing. Which way should she send the trolly?

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.

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

You can’t say, can you? Your ethics leave the building on this one question, whether it is right or wrong for a mother to abort her offspring.

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.

Except there is a human being on one track and no one on the next.

Right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad, correct or incorrect…these are the reasons informing why someone should or shouldn’t perform some behavior on another. The behavior in this instance is killing a living human, and the choice whether to do so or not lies with the moral agent.

You lack any insight on whether she should or shouldn’t pull the lever, or you think it doesn’t matter. I’ll reframe the question. Why is it morally acceptable for a mother to kill her offspring?

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.

If we say “abortion” we have to draw some lines and fix some boundaries. One of them is “human”. If, when it becomes difficult to fix that boundary I just say “everything changes anyway” I can’t say “human” anymore. — Fire Ologist

Sure you can. The point is only that we may identify things based on our goals. For instance, if our goals are pragmatic in nature we may identify something one way and if our goals are spiritual in nature we may identify them a different way.

A cup can be an instrument for drinking or a sacred object and we would treat it differently based on our vision of it. The secular cup is useless for attaining spiritual goals and the sacred cup is useless for attaining practical goals (if sacrilegious to use it that way).

I’m religious. — Fire Ologist

Don’t you think this influences how you identify things?

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.

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

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 get that you accept her choice. You don’t need to restate your opinion on that matter. But I do want to hear the reasoning behind why think it is right to kill a human zygote.

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.

You’d just be repeating evasions anyways. They all contain reasons why you accept her choice, not whether the act itself is right or wrong.

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.

Humans are single-celled for a few days at best. But no need to reiterate the position.