at least where I think we are now is agreement on P1. Summarized

Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral, and an important part of what makes it immoral is it deprives them of their future.

We good on this ?

on to premise 2:

P2. From a very early point in a pregnancy there is a unique human organism.

After the process of conception is completed there exists a new zygote cell. This cell has a unique genetic makeup. This zygote is an embryonic stem cell with the ability to generate every organ in the body. For the next 2 weeks or so, or until it is at the 16 cell stage it has the ability to split and twin. After this time, there exists a unique human organism, and this organism can only develop into a human.

Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral... — Rank Amateur

All this says is that we ought not kill people whom we ought not kill.

Better to say that we ought not kill people because it deprives them of their future.

thanks, yea thought I had, but after pages and pages of explanation after explanation, I am sure there are lots of strings of words that can be highlighted and argued against

Here is the last pared down version of P1.


Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral, and an important part of what makes it immoral is it deprives them of their future.

And here is the original full one

P1. One definition of murder is the loss of one’s future of value

Any discussion on abortion needs to start with some theoretical account of the wrongness of killing. I would imagine most on here would have no issue with the assertion it is morally impermissible to, without justification, kill adult human beings like us.

But why is it wrong to kill people like us? While we may want to suggest it is the loss others would experience due to our absence. But if that was all it was, it would allow the killing of hermits, or those who lead otherwise independent or friendless lives.

A better answer would be the primary wrong done by the killing is the harm it does to the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. However is it simply the change in a biological state that make killing wrong? That seems insufficient.

The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.

Unjustified killing of people like us is immoral, and an important part of what makes it immoral is it deprives them of their future.

We good on this ? — Rank Amateur

Don't know why you insist on the "important part" clause. You can have it, But in as much as the terms of it are undefined, I disqualify it from the argument.

P2. From a very early point in a pregnancy there is a unique human organism. — Rank Amateur

Human in the sense of not being a raccoon or a penguin. Unique in the sense of as it is in itself there is no other like it. But I remind you that its constituent parts were no less unique - and if uniqueness is a ground for a claim, then the claim attaches with equal weight to the parts.

The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me — Rank Amateur

You need to account for how there can be a loss to me if there is no me. Else this is just a gee-whiz throw-away for the choir that does not meet basic criteria for consideration in a real argument.

agree on the human part. On unique meaning it can only make 1 specific and unique individual human. It can't make Tim wood and rank and s. It can only one specific human, with a unique genetic make up.

could I have that parse in context?

Yeah, sure. This all looks convolute to my eye. I would just say that killing another person is wrong, end of story. If forced to fill that out I would say something along the lines of intrinsic worth or treating a person as a means, not an end; but these amount to more words that say the same thing.

But I will go along with "depriving a person of their future is wrong". So the point might be moot.

@Rank Amateur

If I might involve myself in this conversation, I would ask for one thing: consistency in the use of words.

Human, human being, and person are three distinct things.

Your blood is human, but not a human being. They are distinct.

A human being is an organism. This is a biological term. A person has moral standing. This is an ethical term.

Would you go along with this?

I agree. The only claim in the FVOL argument about the fetus is it is a unique human organism. The overt purpose of the argument is to avoid the morass of personhood

Sounds like we are kind of ok on P2 - on to P3

P3. All adult humans undergo the same process of development

Currently, there is no other way to become an adult human being, than to start as a human ovam, and a human sperm, to undergo the process of conception and fertilization and the various stages of embryonic development leading to a birth of some type.

Then it's not uniqueness you have in mind. What do you have in mind?

Not sure what this refers to.

Not twins. I'd go with individual human.

Would you go along with this? — Banno

Amen. Banno the condenser. We all need that from time to time.

P3. All adult humans undergo the same process of development — Rank Amateur

Without objection.

agree why I established the point after twinning

P4. Each human being on the planet can directly trace their past as a biological creature on earth from now back to their unique human organism as defined in P2 — Rank Amateur

We ok with this

A human being can be traced back to a zygote? Sure.

ha

P5. All things that are part of a unique past time line as defined in P4, where at one time a future on the same time line. — Rank Amateur

4.3k
↪Rank Amateur A human being can be traced back to a zygote? Sure. — Banno

Technically, in the argument a about 2 weeks after the process of conception, after twinning is no longer possible, but close enough

Difficult wording. What does this say that adds to P4?

just making the point that past and future are part of the same time line.

Last Friday is your past today, it was your future on Thursday

SO let's go:

P5: past precedes future.

P6. If P5, all human organisms as defined in P2 are on a unique time line that encompasses their unique human future much like ours — Rank Amateur

Here is the problem with personhood, in moral/ethical arguments -

The core issue is, is it biology or something else that makes us a moral actor? If biology, the answer is easy. If something else, what. And all criteria expect one fails on begging the question.

Entity A is not a person because it does not have characteristic X
However characteristic X is in entity B and entity B is a person
Then they modify characteristic X so it only applies to entity A

Leaving the logic: entity A is not a person because entity A is not a person

The exception is the embodied mind argument that our personhood has nothing at all to do with biology. We do not exist as persons until we are an embodied mind. Most often agreed to be sometime in early childhood. This argument is logical and persuasive, the only major issue is it allows infanticide, which as to your whole point above people generally reject. — Rank Amateur

Ehhhh... i don't think I agree with your logic here. But let's put that aside, because I think it would be a waste of time since I likely fall into your category of embodied minds.

The thing I tend to think of that really makes a person unique is that they have a body of their own, they have a mind of their own, they have social relationships, and they have a history. It's the history criteria that I think distinguishes between, say, a person in a coma and a fetus. And the fetus' body is contiguous with the mothers prior to birth so as far as I'm concerned drawing the line at birth is laying the line down on the safe side of things.

At least after birth we can say that there is a child with a body of their own, even if they don't have a mind just yet.

But, yeh, I don't think that personhood is strictly biological so I'd probably fall into the embodied mind camp, as you phrase it. It's an ethical category.

the thought experiment that goes with it, is I get in car accident and my body is a mess, but my brain is fine, at the same time, do to some illness another person's brain is deteriorating. The doctors take my brain and put it in his body. Is the new person me or him?