The right to choose isn’t a moral issue? — praxis

I think the inference is that rights are brute, rather than something "consider-able". Lots of pro-life people take this stance, instead of Banno's, in siding with the mother.

but it's based on the assumption that a mind is not a continuous entity but a series of unrelated instances

I am not a bundle theorist; and nothing I said entails that. The mind persists as long as its underlying physical constitution is preserved through processes and storage; but this is not the same as claiming that a malfunctioning brain, which may still be a means of preserving a mind, is currently producing a person.

Personhood, as I take it, is a property that a thing has when it currently has a rational will; and this is not found in unconscious humans.

Uh, what is absurd about that? Why would dead human beings have rights?

Imagine there’s a person who just died and all their family members or loved ones are dead. A stranger wants to have sex with their corpse: if that dead person has no rights, being dead, then there is nothing, per se, immoral about having sex with their corpse. Are you willing to bite that bullet?

A response one could give is that some actions are immoral and yet don’t violate a right of someone else—e.g., torturing a pig. They would then point out that, similarly, the dead person has no rights but it would still be immoral to have sex with their corpse.

To that, I respond that it is disanalogous; for the actions which are immoral but don’t directly violate a right (of a person) can be morally permissible per accidens (e.g., having to torture a pig if it were to prevent a major societal catastrophe), whereas it is always wrong to have sex with a dead person's corpse (no differently than it is always wrong to kill an innocent person). Persons, given their nature qua rationality, marks them out as absolute objects of respect.

This is fine if we're talking about subjects where there's no disconnect between what the teleology says it's natural and what individuals usually want

That, and everything you commented, is completely anti-thetical to everything I said. When a person says that their arm is not working properly, they usually are saying it in the Aristotelian sense and not this post-humean sense that you described. Viz., they are saying something is actually wrong with their arm, and not that it is wrong hypothetically relative to their subjective tastes.

On the subject of abortion, that brings us back to the familiar question: does a fetus have a presumed interest to become a person?

Your problem is that you are thinking about this like a Humean. This question makes no sense for an Aristotelian.

But what do the biologists mean when they say life?

They mean that a new member of the human species has been created and is alive.

A sperm and egg are alive: no one disputes that. The fact is, also, that a human being begins to exist upon conception of those two. A sperm is alive, but is not a human; an egg is alive but is not a human, but a fertilized egg is a human.

I didn't say that the living human being was a person during the entirety of gestation; and I've already noted that I ground rights in the nature of a being such that if their nature sets them out as a person, then they deserve rights even if they aren't currently a person.

What about the case of the brain-dead child being kept alive by machines? Do parents have the right to pull the plug and authorize the doctors to harvest the organs?

So you claim that killing foetuses is wrong but don't need to point to some measurable property of being wrong because "wrong" is an adjective, and others claim that foetuses aren't people and need to point to some measurable property of being a person because "person" is a noun?

Such an argument from grammar is special pleading.

I don’t understand why I need to point to a property of “wrongness”. I also never said someone needs to point to a measurable property of being a person. I was saying there is no such measurable property, so it makes zero sense that I would say you need to point to one.

My argument this whole time is that it’s wrong to intentionally kill a human being (unless he deserves it or it is in self-defense), to deprive him of life. A fetus is a human being.

I don't understand your reply. You say there is no means to determine personhood, yet (if I follow you correctly) you agree that a country's legal system has to make that decision.

I forget the context but I don’t think a country’s legal system has to make the decision.

I don’t understand why I need to point to a property of “wrongness”. I also never said someone needs to point to a measurable property of being a person. I was saying there is no such measurable property, so it makes zero sense that I would say you need to point to one. — NOS4A2

Echarmion asked "is this supposed to mean that there's no evidence for personhood?"

You responded with "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."

I am simply explaining that being (or not being) able to point to something has no bearing on whether or not someone is a person, just as being (or not being) able to point to something has no bearing on whether or not something is wrong.

My argument this whole time is that it’s wrong to intentionally kill a human being (unless he deserves it or it is in self-defense), to deprive him of life. A fetus is a human being. — NOS4A2

And this is where there is disagreement. It is wrong to intentionally kill a born human, and perhaps a foetus of a sufficient age, but it is not wrong to intentionally kill an embryo or young foetus.

The possession of human DNA and the future possibility of being born is not sufficient grounds to force a pregnant woman to carry the child to term.

My argument this whole time is that it’s wrong to intentionally kill a human being (unless he deserves it or it is in self-defense), to deprive him of life. A fetus is a human being. — NOS4A2

But abortion is much older than you might think. Native American women knew which plants would bring about abortion. Anti-abortion is more a Christian thing and perhaps the ethics of a community that's trying to increase its numbers.

Women, burdened by gestation, birth, and child-raising, are the ones who should be deciding what's right for themselves and their communities. That's what I think.

I think it's important to avoid any equivocation.

This seems to be the pro-life argument:

a) "X is a human" means "X has human DNA"
b) It is never acceptable to kill a human
c) Therefore, it is never acceptable to kill something with human DNA

The pro-choice crowd deny that both (a) and (b) are true together; it's one or the other:

a) "X is a human" means "X has human DNA"
d) It is sometimes acceptable to kill something with human DNA
e) Therefore, it is sometimes acceptable to kill a human

or

b) It is never acceptable to kill a human
d) It is sometimes acceptable to kill something with human DNA
e) Therefore, "X is a human" does not mean "X has human DNA"

Echarmion asked "is this supposed to mean that there's no evidence for personhood?"

You responded with "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."

I am simply explaining that being (or not being) able to point to something has no bearing on whether or not someone is a person, just as being (or not being) able to point to something has no bearing on whether or not something is wrong.

Sometimes you have to show, not tell. I ask you to point to what you’re referring to and you point to a human being. I agree that’s a human being. If I ask you to show me what makes it a person and you have to go off searching into your mind instead of revealing some or other biological fact about that human being, then you don’t have anything but your own thoughts. If you cannot point to any distinction then there is no distinction.

If you’re going to condemn some human beings to death because you’ve relegated them to the status of non-person, you better have something better than your own thoughts and feelings.

If I ask you to show me what makes it a person... — NOS4A2

And if I ask you to show me what makes killing a human embryo wrong?

If you’re going to condemn some human beings to death because you’ve relegated them to the status of non-person, you better have something better than your own thoughts and feelings. — NOS4A2

There is a very real biological difference between an embryo and a baby. They might share the same kind of DNA, but there is much more to an organism than its DNA.

Yes, it’s the woman’s choice. Let’s hope she makes the moral one.

And if I ask you to show me what makes killing a human embryo wrong?

I would refrain as best as possible from positing phantom properties and folk biology.

There is a very real biological difference between an embryo and a baby. They might share the same kind of DNA, but there is much more to an organism than its DNA.

The baby was an embryo. No embryo, no baby, no human being. But yes, organisms aren’t DNA.

The baby was an embryo. — NOS4A2

It was an embryo, but now isn't. There is a very real biological difference between a baby and an embryo. This very real biological difference has moral relevance and is why it is wrong to kill a baby but not wrong to kill an embryo.

I would refrain as best as possible from positing phantom properties and folk biology. — NOS4A2

So are you now saying that it isn't wrong to kill a human embryo? Or are you refusing to show me what makes killing a human embryo wrong? This is why you are special pleading; you demand that we show you what makes something a person but refusing to show us what makes killing a human embryo wrong.

It was an embryo, but now isn't. There is a very real biological difference between a baby and an embryo. That very real biological difference has moral relevance and is why it is wrong to kill a baby but not wrong to kill an embryo.

Now we’re on to something. What biological differences make it not wrong to kill an embryo, but wrong to kill a baby?

So are you now saying that it isn't wrong to kill a human embryo? Or are you refusing to show me what makes killing a human embryo wrong? This is why you are special pleading; you demand that we show you what makes something a person but refusing to show us what makes killing a human embryo wrong.

I’ve already described my reasoning and the entities it applies to as best as possible.

What biological differences make it not wrong to kill and embryo, but wrong to kill a baby? — NOS4A2

The biggest and most relevant difference is that a baby is no longer being carried in the womb of its mother, and so the mother's bodily rights are no longer an issue.

Another significant difference is that the thalamocortical connections that are required for consciousness do not develop until ~26 weeks of pregnancy.

I’ve already described my reasoning and the entities it applies to as best as possible. — NOS4A2

You've asserted that it is wrong to kill anything with human DNA (except in self-defence, etc.). You haven't shown what makes it wrong.

The biggest and most relevant difference is that a baby is no longer being carried in the womb of its mother, and so for the most part the mother's bodily rights are no longer an issue.

Another significant difference is that the thalamocortical connections that are required for consciousness do not develop until ~26 weeks of pregnancy.

What if the mother wants the child. Does the zygote then deserve a chance at life and become worthy of protection, or is it still disposable?

You've asserted that it is wrong to kill anything with human DNA (except in self-defence, etc.). You haven't justified this.

Yes, it is wrong to intentionally kill a fetus for the same reasons it is wrong to kill any other human being. You can disagree with the premise that a fetus is a human being, or that it is not wrong to kill human beings, but it’s difficult to reasonably do so.

A sperm and egg are alive: no one disputes that. The fact is, also, that a human being begins to exist upon conception of those two. A sperm is alive, but is not a human; an egg is alive but is not a human, but a fertilized egg is a human. — Bob Ross

Of course human eggs and human sperm are human. They don’t contain zebra DNA, they have human DNA. They are alive and they are human.

Why do you resist the concept of an immortal soul when that is ultimately what you’re arguing?

Yes, it’s the woman’s choice. Let’s hope she makes the moral one. — NOS4A2

But you don't favor legislating it, right?

Yes, it is wrong to intentionally kill a fetus for the same reasons it is wrong to kill any other human being. — NOS4A2

What are these "same reasons"?

Because I would say that it is wrong to kill other humans because it is wrong to kill humans with thoughts and feelings and wants. Embryos and (early stage) foetuses don't have thoughts or feelings or wants. They are more like the brain dead living on life support.

You can disagree with the premise that a fetus is a human being, or that it is not wrong to kill human beings, but it’s difficult to reasonably do so. — NOS4A2

It's not difficult when you make sure not to equivocate. See my post above.

What if the mother wants the child. Does the zygote then deserve a chance at life and become worthy of protection.. — NOS4A2

Only to the extent that the mother deserves her wants respected.

1. I don't believe we have souls.

2. You are conflating the adjective 'human' insofar as it relates to something being a part of a human with the noun 'human' insofar as it relates to something being a human. E.g., my human skill cell (which is a redundant way to put it btw) is not a human.

You already asked this question here, and I responded here.

All else being equal, we would expect the doctors to do everything they can to rehabilitate them and keep them alive. Circumstances matter, though, as, e.g., the doctors may have to prioritize one sick patient over another; but this is a reflection of limited resources and not a disrespect for human life. — Bob Ross

Should the parents be allowed to authorize the doctors to remove life support?

Women, burdened by gestation, birth, and child-raising, are the ones who should be deciding what's right for themselves and their communities. That's what I think. — frank

b-b-b-b-bingo (merely enthusiastic assent. Not trying to say you have the moral authority lol

my human skill cell (which is a redundant way to put it btw) is not a human. — Bob Ross

A skin cell can be cloned and I think you'd need to be a biologist to distinguish a skin cell from a zygote, so it's amusing that you say a skin cell is not a human.

Sperm and egg cells are unlike skin cells though. They can't be cloned because they don't have a complete set of genetic material. Indivicually they don't qualify as a human, according to your apparent qualifications. But then there isn't much difference between a fertilized egg, an almost fertilized egg, and a skin cell, in terms of their genetic potential. And you say that a skin cell is not a human.

:up: :up:

I am unsure as to what exactly you are asking here: are you asking if (1) the doctor should have to wait for approval to pull the plug (in the event where the doctor needs to in order to prioritize other patients) or if (2) the parents can simply decide when to pull the plug (even if it isn't a matter of limit resources)?

Euthanasia is a topic that would be interesting to tackle: I am not sure if in every case it is immoral to kill someone out of respect for that person. It's an interesting pickle; but disanalogous to abortion: an abortion is a total disregard of that innocent life.

A skin cell can be cloned and I think you'd need to be a biologist to distinguish a skin cell from a zygote, so it's amusing that you say a skin cell is not a human.

You don't understand, without the help of a biologist, that a skin cell isn't a human being?

Whether or not you can distinguish a zygote from a skin cell is a separate and completely irrelevant point: a skin cell is not a human being. You don't need to be an expert to put that together.

You don't understand, without the help of a biologist, that a skin cell isn't a human being? — Bob Ross

A skin cell can't clone itself if that's what you mean. By the same token, a zygote can't develop itself either.