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.

An actual person is an actual person. Someone you can meet and talk to, and who responds.

Morality ought to concern persons, subjects. I don't see how their species would be relevant.

Are those who do not respond not persons? Are persons and subjects living human beings or are they not?

"Everyone knows" is not an argument. I gave you the reasoning, I trust you're capable of understanding it.

Point proven. I’ll put you down as the first person I’ve ever met who believes they were never a fetus. Unfortunately the reasoning fully contradicts the evidence.

That's one way of putting it. Though I'm an embodied soul, whose existence is measurable. "Soul" often implies something esoteric, but I don't mean to imply that anything mystic is going on. Merely that "I" am formed from a connection of a body, some kind of cognitive process and memories.

A clump of cells would not be me even if it shared my DNA. If you made an exact copy of me, that copy would cease to be me the moment it added it's own experiences.

I don't think any of this is very complicated in principle.

It is very complicated because you have no thing nor structure nor any formation to point to that can proven to be connected to your body, and that can be labelled with such a pronoun, other than the things, structures, and formations already in there.

By all means, may 'merca have a sane ethical and political discussion, without divine intervention. — Banno

American abortion law was fairly progressive prior to Roe's reversal. Anchoring the law in convoluted Constitutional interpretation left it vulnerable. It's now been thrown back to the states and the democratic debate that was stunted for 50 years has been reopened. We're in a time of transition, but i think we'll eventually get it right. Hard decisions are supposed to be messy.

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

I agree the Roe-Wade decision was a pretty poor basis for such things. — Banno

And how so? Have you read it? It seems to me well-legged on history of law, balance of concerns for health of the mother and at approximately quickening/viability the health of the unborn child, and implied constitutional rights to privacy and bodily autonomy. And explicit law is a bad idea, except perhaps for frogs that might want such a thing, but as was said to them more than two millennia ago, "be careful what you wish for!"

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.

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.

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

Intellectuals advise, but they rarely govern.

Alas, you're quite right. But it's not because Roe is bad, but because it's enemies so unprincipled.

Are those who do not respond not persons? — NOS4A2

If they don't respond, you need some kind of other evidence that they're thinking.

Are persons and subjects living human beings or are they not? — NOS4A2

I think at least some other species need to be considered. Some primate and whale species, for example.

Point proven. I’ll put you down as the first person I’ve ever met who believes they were never a fetus. Unfortunately the reasoning fully contradicts the evidence. — NOS4A2

What evidence? You never gave me any.

It is very complicated because you have no thing nor structure nor any formation to point to that can proven to be connected to your body, and that can be labelled with such a pronoun, other than the things, structures, and formations already in there. — NOS4A2

I don't really understand what you're talking about here. "Such a pronoun"? Which one? Is the question whether my mind is connected to my body?

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

To your point though, and of which I purposefully left out, my view does raise the question of when exactly does a human being acquire rights? If it is personhood, then it clearly doesn't begin [having rights] at conception.

The two basic views is the personhood vs. animalism style arguments, but I think both fail for reasons I will skip over for now. I think that the Aristotelian view works best: a human being acquires rights that a person gets because their nature sets them out as being a member of a rational species. Trying to dissect rights in terms of when a being currently has personhood vs. merely being alive doesn't really work; whereas analyzing the living thing in terms of its substance works great.

Trying to dissect rights in terms of when a being currently has personhood vs. merely being alive doesn't really work; whereas analyzing the living thing in terms of its substance works great. — Bob Ross

How would that work with a braindead child being kept alive on life support after a car accident? Do the parents have any say in removing life support and/or letting the doctors harvest organs? Do the doctors have to provide heroic actions to keep the child alive?

If they don't respond, you need some kind of other evidence that they're thinking.

It all seems very arbitrary. It’s not unlike the soul concept.

What evidence? You never gave me any.

You could ask your mother. You could watch any human birth. Look at sonograms and infer from there. But the fact is all homo sapiens were fetuses. You are a homo sapien. Therefor you were a fetus.

I don't really understand what you're talking about here. "Such a pronoun"? Which one? Is the question whether my mind is connected to my body?

Never mind. It’s all to convoluted, like religion

It all seems very arbitrary. It’s not unlike the soul concept. — NOS4A2

It's arbitrary that communication is part of what makes a person? Hardly.

You could ask your mother. You could watch any human birth. Look at sonograms and infer from there. But the fact is all homo sapiens were fetuses. You are a homo sapien. Therefor you were a fetus. — NOS4A2

Yeah yeah, no-one is in doubt about the biology. But "I" wasn't around, was I? The thinking process that experiences itself as a continuously existing actor. The "I think, therefore I am" of Descartes. That "I".

How could that have been around at conception?

Yeah, that was you the whole time, the biology. It's all you are. It's all you will be.

So if I'm shot in the head, nothing relevant changes right? It's still me. No different than a broken arm. The DNA of my cells would be the same, most of the biology would still be perfectly fine.

So if I'm shot in the head, nothing relevant changes right? It's still me. No different than a broken arm. The DNA of my cells would be the same, most of the biology would still be perfectly fine.

A relevant change would be a hole in your head and damage to very important parts of your body. It's much different than a broken arm in that it's a different location on the body and involves different anatomy. No, your biology would not be perfectly fine.

A relevant change would be a hole in your head and damage to very important parts of your body. It's much different than a broken arm in that it's a different location on the body and involves different anatomy. No, your biology would not be perfectly fine. — NOS4A2

But it would still be me right? You haven't answered the question clearly and I would really like a direct answer.

If a cell without a brain is me, then so is my body with some damage to the head, right?

But it would still be me right? You haven't answered the question clearly and I would really like a direct answer.

If a cell without a brain is me, then so is my body with some damage to the head, right?

Yes, it is still you even with damage to the head.

I think that if you conclude that a body without a working brain is a person, you should examine your premises.

All those doctors doing organ transplants or shutting off life saving machines in case of irrecoverable brain damage are killing a person, in your framework.

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.

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. — NOS4A2

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".

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. — NOS4A2

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.

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 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. — NOS4A2

And? Once again you leave things hanging by suggesting you have an argument but not making it.

So yes I would point to my body and yes there's a causal chain that point from my current state back to conception. It also points further backwards and forwards indefinitely. But you're not telling my why you think the two are connected.

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. — NOS4A2

But how are we better off by ignoring the question? If we're not even willing to talk about what makes a person, then how are we going to expose those bad human behaviours?

It is very complicated because you have no thing nor structure nor any formation to point to that can proven to be connected to your body, and that can be labelled with such a pronoun, other than the things, structures, and formations already in there. — NOS4A2

Which makes it extremely simple. If this connection doesn't obtain, then the other possible connection we could either observe, or care about, is a psychological one. And that clearly does not obtain, if a person 'who would be you' then has it's own experiences. They are not you, any longer. No trouble with this; it's just really uncomfortable for people who want to say they have a definable, observable identity in the sense meant here (rather htan some kind of social character).

As regards abortion, I cannot wrap my head around you knowing, as a fact, that a non-living clump of living cells (by almost any definition of 'living' that isn't arbitrarily academic (i.e tells us nothing about our experiences or intuitions, but could be called 'correct')) could be considered morally important, yet at some arbitrary point along that line, you're happy to make the call - Why is not the same for anyone else? Some call it at conception, some call it at viability with margins of error, some call it at birth.. Where's the catch?

Added later because I read another of your comments:

Why do you think it's alright to kill any invasive being in the human body, but a zygote/fetus? Is there some distinction (other than 'human') you would want to put here to explain it? Legit question - i'm sure there are good answers. I take it you don't have an issue eviscerating a tape-worm, eg.

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.

A blastocyst is a cyst. — Banno

Not in the way you need it to mean for your glibbery. A blastocyst is specifically a state of zygotic development, and not comparable to say, an ovarian cyst. It requires an embryoblast - which gives rise to the potential to become a human being. It is set apart, and Bob's gripe was legitimate, if in hte wrong place and about the wrong part of hte account.

Clearly, 'cyst' is not what's being talked about. We know this because ovarian cysts are sometimes mistaken for zygotic blastocysts. You seem, oddly, to be entirely aware of this.

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.

It is unambiguously not a person, not a human being with memories, needs, and preferences. — Banno

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

I don't afford embryos the rights of a person because they don't look like people. They look like a dividing cell under a microscope. I could pretend it's more than that, but it's not. An unconscious amnesiac is a person if he resembles those I know to be people.

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.